i dont get why its such a bad thing.
people say god doesnt like gays but than
god put us on this earth he made us who we are and
if he didnt like them than why are they still here
i personaly thinks that gay marriage or couples isnt bad i have no
problem with it.

I'm throwing this out there ***This is not how I feel***

I think that people believe that race is something that cannot be changed and, because of that, race should not be a factor in civil rights. You are born the race you are.

IMHO, people are of the opinion that sexuality is a choice. You (I'm generalizing) can choose to be homosexual. Homosexuality is not readily accepted in our country and, if you choose to be homosexual, you should not expect that all your civil rights will be protected. ***I'm not equating homosexuality with being a criminal*** - But I think some people look at homosexuality as almost being criminal. A criminal makes the choice to commit a crime. Once that crime is committed, the criminal gives up certain, not all, civil rights. Had he/she chosen not to commit a crime, he/she would still have the same civil rights as everyone else.

Does this make sense to anyone or am I just too out of it on flu medicine and should get off the computer?

YUP. That's what I've been saying. It will happen in the Supreme Court as have most advancements in civil rights.

Trixie, I do understand your point, and I do think that a lot of people feel that way...that being gay is a "choice". However, I don't know if that would hold up in court. I guess we will see!

I hope you're right Jillness - though Scalia could easily be one of those people who sees accepting gays as natural is the same as accepting pedophiles.

trixie i think you're making sense... i think there are a lot of people who definitely look at it that way. im not too knowledgeable on the history of gay civil rights in the courts, but if they did bring up the whole "choice" thing up in the supreme court case, would this be the first time it's been argued in court that you're born gay and it's not a choice? or has that already been put in the legal record? if it hasn't, this could be another good result of this making it to the supreme court... finally some legal documentation about the scientific facts that the majority of intelligent people know to be true.

Trixie - I can see that's where some people are coming from. While it's true that homosexuality is not readily accepted in our country, there was also a time when interracial relationships and marriage were not readily acceptable in our country and were against the law, punishable with imprisonment. Depending on the jurisdiction, gay relationships were also against the law as well until the SCOTUS invalidated those laws.

If you look at this through the history of interracial relationships/marriage and the law, I think with the invalidation of sodomy laws it seems natural that SCOTUS would continue in the direction of invalidating gay marriage bans. I guess this may come down to whether or not SCOTUS considers gay a a choice or not.

Woop - I agree with what you said and, really, what I posted was off topic in the sense that it really doesn't have anything to do with the law.

I think the door was opened for interracial marriage with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I'm going to research it, but does anyone else know of any talk to include sexual orientation as a protected class?

Trixie - I think it is relevant to the law when some people who believe choosing homosexuality or choosing to be with someone outside of one's race is criminal (as in breaking religious laws) fight to have these religious laws become actual laws.

What I never get about the idea that homosexuality is a choice is one, who would choose something that is so hard to be in our country?

And two, I could choose to be gay? Really? Because I've only been attracted to men. I don't remember checking a box anywhere...

Honestly I don't think the quote you offered here ends the debate at all. They're obviously talking about race, and not sexual orientation. The two are not really comparable. Certainly this case would be considered (especially the part about it being a fundamental right) but unfortunately it isn't that simple.

I have to wonder why everybody is so down on Scalia. Obviously I think he's a great man, so I'm biased, but I think the digs are uncalled for. It is very difficult to say how he would rule on any issue without knowing the exact case because (like a judge should), Scalia tends to rule based on the specific issues in the case and not based on politics.

I thought the idea of "ending the debate" was that if it goes to the Supreme Court, then it's game over. Not that one quote or argument will put an end to things.

TS, the first sentence that Jill wrote in her post implies that this case sets the precedent that will make gay marriage legal. That's what I was responding to.

Honestly I'm really nervous about this issue going to the S.C. On one hand, the Court could say that states are allowed to outlaw gay marriage, which would just be awful. On the other hand, the Court could say that allowing gay marriage is necessitated by the Constitution. That would be good, but depending on the wording and logic of the decision, it could set some dangerous precedents that limit state power. I just wish the states could do the right thing on their own.

"about race, and not sexual orientation. The two are not really comparable."
To me, they absolutely are comparable. You're born with a certain sexual orientation just as you are born of a certain race.

Quick answer: I don't like Scalia for things like this:

“Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached”

“STAHL: If someone’s in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person — if you listen to the expression “cruel and unusual punishment,” doesn’t that apply?
SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think — Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don’t think so.
STAHL: Well I think if you’re in custody, and you have a policeman who’s taken you into custody–
SCALIA: And you say he’s punishing you? What’s he punishing you for? … When he’s hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn’t say he’s punishing you. What is he punishing you for?”

Steph, I agree that both are things people can't choose. But a straight marriage between people of a different race is still categorically different than a homosexual marriage. You know the two of us are on the same page on this issue, I'm just afraid the S.C. won't associate interacial marriages that closely with homosexual marriages.

As for the Scalia comments, surely you're entitled to your opinions about him, but I think those quotes are just proof that he's a letter of the law type of judge. Of course I don't always agree with him, and you can take anything too far, but most of the time I think he gets it right.

When you say categorically different do you literally mean categorically - race is one column and sexual orientation another?

Steph, I'm not sure what you're asking, but yes I mean it literally.

Steph - There again, it comes down to whether or not sexual orientation is a choice or something, like race, that you're born to? Is there any proof that a person is born gay? Race is easier because it's visible. You can look at someone and see, usually, that they are black or white or Hispanic. Most often, you can't look at someone and see that they're gay.

Mich - I agree with you about Scalia. I don't always agree with what he says, but he does seem to go by the letter of the law.

My understanding is that science leans toward the belief that yes, people are born homosexual and homosexual behavior based on sexual and not social instances has been documented in any number of animal species. Generally, the opposition I've read runs to 'yeah but there's no absolute proof yet'. But we don't discriminate based on religion, and we all definitely choose that.

Mich, I'm having a lot of trouble understanding your POV, so one more question: is there, in your view, a need for an equal rights amendment for women?

Steph, I really don't see how that question is relevant. But no, I don't believe there is a need.

Grrr - I almost had finished a response Mich, when my computer flicked off! Lemme do some work, then I'll try again.

Here’s why I asked about the ERA and my confusion with your POV.

Race and sexual orientation to you are not comparable - totally separate columns - and therefore, the quote regarding basic rights and race cannot be applied to basic rights and sexual orientation.

I’m assuming (and I may be wrong) that you don’t feel we need an Equal Rights Amendment because the Constitution applies to the basic rights of males and females equally - women do not need to specifically be granted equal rights.

But - a gay, black male is far more comparable to a straight, white male than a female is. Females and males have more measurable physiological differences, more psychological differences - natural differences that have nothing to do with choices. There always have been societies on earth that treated men and women differently socially and legally - the U.S. Constitution defies some major religions if it finds them equal.

So I don’t understand how it can be that the Constitution can grant males and females equal rights, despite serious inherent and historic legal distinctions but deny gays basic rights that are extended to people of color when as groups, the two have far fewer inherent differences - if any.

Steph, when I said that they're not comparable I was speaking more in terms of what the Supreme Court might think, and not how I personally feel about it. Like you said (and I agree) you don't get to choose either your race or your sexual orientation.

When I read the constitution and see the phrase "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", to me that says that no person can be denied the right to enter into a contract that some other person is allowed to enter into.

However, the 'marriage' contract is traditionally between a male and a female. So while allowing a black man and white woman (or whatever) to marry seems like the logical "equal protection", I'm afraid it won't be so easy for the Justices to apply the same logical progression to a man and a man. That is the long, convoluted explanation of what I meant by 'categorically different'. The white man and black woman fit into the traditional categories, the two brides do not.

So anyway, I think the language of the Constitution itself should give gays the right to marry. You don't even have to look to precedent, as far as I'm concerned, but this case alone probably won't be the tie breaker.

Ah, that's less complicated, in some ways, than I was making it.

But before interracial marriage was made legal, it wasn't traditional. And you could say any white person was absolutely free to enter into that contract with any other white person. I don't see how they're not parallel.

(thanks true, I had decided not to go there...)

It's still much easier to squeeze 'black woman' into the place of 'white woman' than it is to squeeze in 'man'. I see your point, but there's obviously a categorical difference. That's what all the fuss is about, right?

It's still much easier to squeeze 'black woman' into the place of 'white woman' than it is to squeeze in 'man'. I see your point, but there's obviously a categorical difference. That's what all the fuss is about, right?

Sorry for the double-post, my computer is being a jerk... In fact I'm afraid this message will double-post as well.

"It's still much easier to squeeze 'black woman' into the place of 'white woman' than it is to squeeze in 'man'. I see your point, but there's obviously a categorical difference."

I think the biggest similarity all of these people you listed is they have the legal right and ability to enter into a contract as an adult citizen of the United States. To deny a legal adult the ability to enter a contract of marriage (without some sort of deniability like a guardianship or incompetance, etc.) denies them a "basic civil right" based only on their sexuality and gender.

Since they established marriage itself as a "basic civil right", I think they will find it hard to strip certain demographics of this clearly defined right.

Jill, I think most of the things you just said are things I've already agreed with. However, the problem comes with this part: "I think they will find it hard to strip certain demographics of this clearly defined right."

Unfortunately, the S.C. hasn't yet identified sexual orientation as one of those demographic categories that you can't discriminate against. So the question is still up in the air. I wish that this case set up a binding precedent, but I just don't see it.