BTW, and to the subject of this thread, historically what has united these various groups is their common view that marriage occurs between members of the opposite sex. How strange Americans and others Westerners must sometimes seem to non-Westerners as we export bizarre ideas like gay “marriage.” Those who shudder at military imperialism on the part of the West ironically fail to see the impact of the cultural imperialism by those same Western powers, a cultural imperialism promoted by film, literature, etc. As one who has lived overseas, I've seen this first-hand.

But let's not talk theory, let's talk reality. The Bronson vs. Swensen case — Google it — is currently working its way up the court chain. It specifically challenges Utah's laws against having multiple spouses. The Lawrence vs. Texas ruling, that struck down remaining state laws against sodomy, is being used as the main basis for the challenge, in exactly the way that Justice Antonin Scalia presciently said it would be. So sure, DLS's comments about rocks and trees seem pretty silly. But multiple spouses? Not so far-fetched. The “slippery slope” argument can be fallacious, but is it in every case?

No, everyone's consent is not needed in a democratic society, at least not here in the USA. Where did you learn civics? Even in a the-voters-directly-do-everything society (which we don't have — hello the three branches of government?), you still only need a certain percentage to consent. Heck, my grandpa is still under the impression that black people shouldn't be allowed to move into his neighborhood; not because he's racist, he says, but because the colored folk bring down everyone's property value, and he should have a right to protect that. We're finding in California that requiring more than 50% legislative vote to do darn near anything (except, incredibly, to change the constitution) means *less* democracy, not more — it requires 1/3 +1 to stymie anything, and so that small 1/3 +1 uber minority controls the state legislature. None of that, of course, takes into account the fact that minorities have historically pretty much never been given their constitutional rights by majority vote, or by “getting everyone to consent”. You know that's true, and your comment is obviously false. Your “routine” correctness seems to have faltered pretty hard on this one.

As to the issue, what is proper as well as relevent remains for definition-change proponents:

* You're free to try again in subsequent elections, as well as in your state legislatures.

* Second, be sure you do things the right way, the legitimate way.

Everyone's consent, not only yours, is needed in our democratic society. And consent takes convincing.

I trust you meant that in good humor. Made me laugh.

On the off chance you meant it seriously, please be advised that having an opinion doesn't make one correct, it only makes one opinionated. Admittedly, there are some who are unable to make that distnction.

Do you have any idea how funny this statement is? We're all just residents in your world, aren't we?

Most of us believe this determination is made as we develop in the womb.

Maybe. But even here, you were less than fully correct, and routinely I'm correct but my critics, not.

Obviously, because that's much in order currently.

Seeking correction or redress of violations of rights is one thing. Creating new “rights” is something else.

Is there a possible federal role? If so, it should be last, not first — always. Can the federal government legislate individual citizens' private conduct? Actually, it can. And here, the issue is, in addition to being the last, never the first or only, thing sought: It should be done by Congress — not by the courts.

Obviously.

That is why I didn't say a word about the recent “hate crimes” law's propriety as a legal matter when it was signed into law by Obama. There's much wrong with it. The “hate crime” concept itself is a variant of bill of attainder if you want to be technical, and more simply, it establishes special cases of protected classes of people. It also is wrong because it creates special “hate crimes” which are “thought crimes” and which is correctly extended to intolerable extremes (PC thought, PC behavior, PC clothing, PC voting, PC eating and food production, et cetera). All vicious crimes are “hate crimes”; there is no need to create special classes of such things to elevate certain people above others (reverse discrimination).

Congress's and Obama's also recent act was also underhanded in attaching “hate crimes” to defense legislation, as well as terribly ironic and unintelligent as well as logically “dark” because it was in place of the perfect opportunity to do something completely consistent with defense legislation and specific where sexual preference was already the subject of federal government decision making: rather than “hate crimes” nonsense, Congress and Obama should have specifically ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell as official Defense Department policy (or openly substituted an official statement of non-discrimination on these grounds) as part of the original legislation, if not as an amendment (whose inclusion would be perfectly consistent and logical).

But instead, some are preoccupied with silliness this year, more than ever lately, it seems. Frustration at the Dems' self-setbacks lately may have something to do with it, but that of course is no excuse for it.

It is your OPINION that this is “correct”. Many disagree with you. Why do they disagree with you? Because the FEDERAL Constitution requires equal protection under the law, and that is being denied to gay people.

“They are temper tantrums — the nature of the reaction the behavior is the issue I correctly identified…”

Stop being testerical. It's perfectly normal, acceptable, and in fact, required, that people be pissed off that their rights get taken away by mob rule. So yeah, I'm gonna throw a friggin fit, and there ain't a darn thing you can do about it. I'm going to try to appeal to people's emotions, because love and marriage and family are *emotional*. The fact that you think everything is made of logic and logic alone is YOUR failure to see reality, not mine.

“get back to work, the _legitimate_ way, to change things if you want.”

That's exactly what I'm doing, and what you're calling a “temper tantrum”. Also: I don't think “legitimate” means what you think it does.

“False statement.” “False statement, again.”

Er, you're telling *me* to “grow up”? I guess I can play the nu-UH! game too. So here goes: It's not false, your statement's false. Then: again, your statement's false. So there! Good thing you're so “grown up”. The court's purpose (as in the entire reason it's there) is to make sure that new laws jive with old laws and the Constitutions that guide those laws. If the courts find that a law does not uphold constitutional priniciples, it is that court's responsibility to overturn the law. That is USE, not MISUSE. See how those words are totally opposite from one another? I know it's a tough concept, but if you think about it long and hard, you might actually understand.

Civil Rights has been dealt with federally, and in the courts since the 19th century.

Federal Legislation: Remember the Civil Rights Act…how about the Voting Rights Act…how about Title IX?
Court Intervention: Remember Brown v. Board of Education from the US Supreme Court?
Federal Executive Action as well: Remember Truman integrating the armed forces…how about Clinton and DADT?

You're welcome to your opinion, but your history on federal legislative and court intervention in civil rights matters could use some polishing.

This is obviously true (it includes an end to “underage” spousal restrictions, too, as well as the sillier but nevertheless perfectly logical other consequences, too, like marrying a tree, a duck, or a rock, as well as marrying any and all relatives, especially when “spousal” and related government benefits are part of the agenda), and has to be addressed by proponents of changing the mainstream (and historical, not only “traditional”) definition of marriage.

Many won't face the facts, just as they won't constrain themselves to sensible and legitimate conduct insofar as how they seek to get their goals realized.

“Because you said so?”

Because it is, not “because I said so.” The earth is round, no matter how much you want it to be flat (or how much you want federal encroachment into state and local affairs, or see Washington as your parent).

“No, the, er 'temper tantrums', which are actually people just standing up for equal rights,”

They are temper tantrums — the nature of the reaction the behavior is the issue I correctly identified…

” will NOT cease. Sorry!”

You should be. And grow up and get back to work, the _legitimate_ way, to change things if you want.

“'Misusing the courts'

“Because misuse of the courts includes upholding the Constitution.”

False statement.

“Or maybe, you're just wrong.”

False statement, again.

Misuse is misuse. Change the law the correct, _legitimate_ way. That is, by the legislative process, through your state legislatures, and by initiatives and referenda where your states have these. (Do you know what these are?) It may even include revising state constitutions, if needed, by the correctly defined process for doing this, if there is one. Of course, that means not only doing things right, but in the case of state legislatures, winning elections and getting representation of your positions (again, the right, proper, legitimate way), which is a challenge for you. You must meet it if you wish to earn respect.
Misusing the courts to bypass this and achieve what you want in a subversive, scummy manner loses it.

From our country's conception until about ten years ago, what “marriage” was had always been clear: one man, and one woman.

That was my original quote. Black, white, native American, whatever. Sure, some were wrongly hung up on how those combined, but it was always one man and one woman, unless you count early Mormon history, and their polygamy was soon outlawed.

Enough of the rest of you will come around eventually and perhaps we'll learn to mind our own damn business.

Seems to me that as long as its a vote, like in Maine, someone just made it my business. Culture is learned behavior, and what we as a society give our blessing to will shape the children who have been entrusted to me, whether I like it or not. So, it's only responsible parenting to seek to shape culture in ways that are wholesome for youngsters. Anything else is a cowardly abdication of duty.

I wonder, GreenDreams: Do you buy the argument that once gay “marriage” is normalized, other things that were once unthinkable (polygamy, perhaps incest) will soon be on the agenda?

redbus, you could “choose” to be abstinent for life, but get serious. Your heterosexuality, and mine, are not really choices. Yeah, we could choose to never experience one of life's great pleasures with persons to whom we're attracted. But that just seems SO disingenuous to suggest as policy. You know we're all driven to have sex, and it's damn sure not just about making babies. I had a vasectomy decades ago. Should I be forbidden to marry? Should I no longer want sex?

And Mustang is right, redbus, marriage has NOT been defined as it currently is “for two hundred plus years”. For the majority of that time, it was between a white man and a white woman. Want to re-sanctify that in the name of “two hundred year” history?? Why was it so defined? Because for over 150 of our 200 years, we thought it was unnatural and against the will of God for the chosen white people to breed with the “inferior” subspecies. We've come a long way in discarding the notions of “inferior” or “deviant” citizens. At least some of us have. Enough of the rest of you will come around eventually and perhaps we'll learn to mind our own damn business.

But we still have some state “sodomy” laws in which “deviant” acts like oral sex are ILLEGAL. For heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. It's been a long slow trek to get government out of the bedroom, but today's young people are much more free of pompous religio-moral restrictions on nudity, variety of sex acts, etc. Very young teens are sexually active in ways we never were, and that would seem to be a bigger problem than gay marriage. And like it or not, the radical reduction of stigma associated with divorce contributes to our high divorce rate, yet I have no desire to see legal or social pressure for people to stay in unhappy or unhealthy relationships. Well, what's happening today, to your apparent horror, is that the stigma of being gay is going away too.

Sil, I think the suggestion that gay people “target” young people in some kind of pedophile homosexual evangelism is just foolish paranoia. I also doubt there is a significant increase in homosexuality among children raised in same-sex households. Got data?

Since when does loving someone mean blanket approval of their every action? My wife loves me, and doesn't always approve of all that I do. In the same way, disapproval of the gay lifestyle in no way equates to “not liking” gay people. In fact, being willing to speak up may indeed be an indicator of my concern for them. If you saw my list of FaceBook friends, you'd see that I have plenty of gay friends, and am happy to engage them on many issues, even if we agree to disagree on the question of so-called “sexual orientation.”

As for how to define marriage, re-read my post. I think it's pretty clear. I'm talking about marriage as it has been defined for two hundred plus years in American society, until the recent revisionism.

By the way, when you say “redefine marriage,” what marriage are you talking about? The one in the bible where a man could have as many wives as he could afford? The arranged marriages where the woman is sold off to her father's business partner as part of a deal and the woman is treated like property? (Those are still going on, by the way.) Or are you talking about the love-and-church marriages where in some parts of the country the divorce rate is 50%? If your marriage is so shaky that having two men get married puts it in jeopardy, it's not the gay couple that has the problem.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV: Same-Sex Marriage Setback in Maine, Hope for the Future: Washington voted for domestic partnerships, but Maine, a si… http://bit.ly/2ARGAv...