archenemy

And slaves, and native Americans, and Japanese Americans, and drinkers, for that matter. No doubt there is an ugly historical disconnect between our behavior and the full potential of the constitution. The supreme court has typically gone along with the 'tyranny of the majority' rather than enforcing the rights supposedly guaranteed by that document. And that is the salient point. The policies of slavery, male only voting, and Jim Crow laws survived because a majority of voters at the time supported them. When voters changed their attitudes, those policies went by the wayside. It's not 'those in power' that maintain unjust policies...it's us. We get the government we deserve. Guantanamo Bay, torture, and gay marriage bans are just the latest versions of this tyranny of the majority. These policies survive only because we continue to support them. But...we've made enormous progress towards realizing the full potential of that document. This was not tyranny of the majority as white men were not in the majority at these times, nor are they now. This is about power, not numbers.

Amen. I think the best thing would be to toss out EVERY incumbent at every election for a few cycles - until they get the point that the electorate grants them power, and they need to get that through their thick skulls. Agreed. It is our duty to purge the gov't when it has reached tyrannical levels.

However, if liberty is not granted, I think it's status as an intrinsic property or an action is fundamental to the constitutional stance on homosexuality. Perhaps. Our constitution provides self evident rights, however. I.e, the government does not 'grant' rights; we already have them, and it must provide a compelling reason to revoke or deny them. So far, the government has provided no compelling reason to deny gays the right to marry, which is, at best, central to the pursuit of happiness for much of that large segment of our population, and, at worst, an utterly victimless act. Indirect offense to, say, religious organizations from such a practice has not constituted a legal harm in the past. BTW: not to split hairs, but our Constitution does not grant us any rights; mostly it defines our government.

They sure found it easy to deny self-evident rights to women for a very, very long time. It is unfortunate that in practise, the gov't mostly ensures that those already in power retain that control. And although ideally we already have rights, the sad truth is that people usually only have the rights they have fought for and taken.

He probably pays strippers too.

I consider 80 old. So if you are 79 or less, you're golden.

Would you please put the space in between "in" and "love" Thanks and good luck with the compass!

I am not claiming that one.

I am also glad that the stripper thing didn't pass. What is truly absurd is wasting tax payer money and police resources to ensure that some old guy doesn't get a lap dance.

finally, someone who understands me

Exactly what I was going to say. Gender, however, is a whole different story.

Sorry, but I am not following you. Forgive me for being a bit behind, I was not online yesterday. Even if I were, however, I doubt that I would be able to live up to your expectations of being able to take everything into account all at once--I'm just not that good. And I am certainly not looking to close this case, the discussion is far more important to me than any decision on the matter.

Looks like the other 50% are going to be looking for new jobs...

Are you implying that I put forth a witty quote? Thanks! Personally, I often learn just as much from one powerful statement than I do from a blithering scientific diatriabe. But to each her own.

I stated my post correctly. Your inability to understand or comprehend shouldn't end up in a 'correction'

1. Taking meth 2. Patronizing gay prostitutes 3. Diddling teenagers 4. Accepting bribes 5. Assaulting mistresses 6. Fixing contracts 7. Lying to the whole world Nope. Can't find 'em. Does it count if I myself was a teen when I diddled other teens?

That is a religious, not scientific conclusion. What we know scientifically to date is inconclusive, but certainly indicates that homosexuality has a significant genetic component, and thus is very analogous to race. My favorite test of this belief is from Savage; he asks, "Is there anything at all in this world that I can give you to let me put my dick in your mouth and leave it there until I have an orgasm?" Case closed.

The Seven Deadly Sins are not mentioned in the Bible

Somebody on NPR was speculating this morning that with such a slim margin, they're probably going to be tempted to make the same partisan plays and attempt similar corruption of the process. I'm afraid I agree with KK here, that we will probably see lots of rhetoric but little change. One can hope, though. I know it is idealistic, but perhaps somebody could look a little longer term and think about rebuilding the Nation or at least the Democratic Party in a better image. I hope folks will remember that the margin was, indeed, slim when they start talking about how "polarized" the nation is becoming.

Blowing this out of proportion? The road to my home is gone. My neighbors' homes are gone. Some of my friends' cars are gone. And also,I won't be able to go fishing for a bit. thank god for the sun today!

So what about non-religious heterosexual couples who get married (either in a church of convenience, in a Las Vegas shack, or by an ordained minister w/o a church, or whatever other permutation you can think of)? They are still considered "married" not "civil unioned" even though they aren't religious. Why would this option not then be available to homosexual couples? And what about homosexual couples who could marry in one of the churches that would perform a marriage for them? The state still does not recognize this as a marriage. The state is still defining and controlling marriage, religion, and the contract between two adults.

this is a clear statement of how I see this situation--thanx

AE - While you might not give a fuck what they call it, the distinction is very important to some. There are many Christians that I know that support civil unions, but want to make a distinction between a legal contract, and the sacrament of marriage. Much of the liberal spew on this subject is that a vocal minority (evangelicals) are trying to force legislation that the majority of Americans are oppposed to. However, when Americans have gone to the ballot box they have demonstrated otherwise. then my "decision" should be clear to you. The distinction is not important to me.

Yes, it is plural; hence the removal of the one on one communication I was referring to. And I agree with your live and let live sentiment.

I wish my calendar looked like that!!!