[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

But the current status quo is that of inequality - gays can't get married to each other and have it be recognized with all of the rights and privileges that straight married couples enjoy. That's a situation that needs to be addressed, and doing it right isn't something we need to hm and haw about. The solution is glaringly obvious. "get it right"? Please. This doesn't take a complex solution arrived at after years of scientific studies.

OK - the claim of inequality means your looking at marriage as a "right". Are we going to "fix" this but continue to deny "equal rights" to those who may be polyamorous and want to have multiple wives or multiple husbands? Or is it the role of the federal government to acknowledge and recognize any union claimed by a group consisting of more than one consenting adult as marriage?

As Tribesman has pointed out many times, the government is, has been, and always will be in the marriage business. It's a legal contract that changes the legal standing of the parties involved. Wanting to drag feet so as to maintain the status quo is only a delaying tactic.

I don't see tribesman since he only chooses to tear apart others views (often erroneously) while never trying to offer solutions. As such, his posts are a waste of time for me and others to read. So don't expect me to address posts I haven't seen.

Contract law states that yes, the government is, has and will be involved in it.

Well, now your stating that marriage is a contract. I thought it was a "right"?

It is the federal government's role to enact civil rights law and uphold the 14th Amendment. I trust the federal government a hell of a lot more than some of these backwards states to protect the civil rights of citizens.

So we are back to it being a right again? As for trust - therein lies one fundamental difference we have - you trust the federal government more that the States. I disagree and I doubt we will close that gap.

If they were able to, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if states like Mississippi and Oklahoma abolished the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I disagree that such would happen and it has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing. Your trying to try bigotry and racism to this subject (and those that hold a different view). Nice....

Wanting to see the states in control of allowing gay marriage or not is another tactic to create enclaves of inequality and hold out and delay granting rights to gay people. You know darn well states like the ones I've mentioned would never allow it, and it's not due to some high minded legal philosophy of states rights or anything like that - it's due to pure theocracy.

So if states would not agree with you - so they must be theocratic tyrannies at the State level? Is that the best you have? No accusations that gays would not be allowed to leave the state to go to another that DOES allow them to marry? No claims of "re-education" camps to "cure" them of the "sickness of homosexuality"? 32 states have passed constitutional ammendments disallowing gay marriage. So 32 states are "pure theocracies"? So places like California and Hawaii are theocracies? The facts prove your claim blatantly false.

The thing is you can't decide whether marriage is a right, or if its a civil contract. If you claim its a right - you still end up referencing the civil contract legalities. If it is a right - gays can live together and provide all the medical/legal authorities to their partners. They can leave their stuff to each other - preserving the right of inheritance. So they are not unequal because they have the ability to do the same.

If its a contract, you simply want to blow off the Constitution because you don't agree with what following it would mean. We disagree because I don't think the Constitution is something that can just be pushed to the side.

Now - I am going to open up a can of worms. Talk about a theocracy - you do realize that if I had my way, marriage would not only be open to gays, but to polygamists. If the people involved were of legal age and consent, you could marry anyone (and everyone) who was willing to marry you. Yes - I said it. Why? Because in an ideal world, its not my business who you marry. So tell me mookie - who should be allowed to marry and who shouldn't? Why should 2 gay men or gay women be allowed to marry - while a man or woman should not be allowed to marry an existing couple (or larger group)?

Yes - I don't think gays should marry. That is a moral stance. But I seperate my personal morals from the role of government. I don't think the government should be limiting the "rights" of its people on their free association. Do you? If you agree with me - then you have to recognize that the "fix" for the government as it stands is not to just "legalize" gay marriage - as that will still live many restricted. It is to get the Federal govt out of the business of marriage.