Mass. Court Strikes Down Gay-Marriage Ban

Same Sex Marriage Forum

ABCnews.com
Massachusetts High Court Rules Ban on Gay Marriage Unconstitutional, Orders Lawmakers to Fix Issue
The Associated Press
BOSTON Nov. 18 — Massachusetts' highest court ruled 4-3 Tuesday that the state's ban on same- sex marriage is unconstitutional and gave lawmakers 180 days to come up with a solution that would allow gay couples to wed.
The court did not issue marriage licenses to the seven couples who sued and left the details to the Legislature.
"Whether and whom to marry, how to express sexual intimacy, and whether and how to establish a family these are among the most basic of every individual's liberty and due process rights," the majority opinion said. "And central to personal freedom and security is the assurance that the laws will apply equally to persons in similar situations."

"Barred access to the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions," the opinion said.

Legal observers said the case took a significant step beyond the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court decision that led to civil unions in that state.

This decision, lawyers said, rules that gay couples are entitled to all the rights of marriage and that creating a separate class of marriage such as civil unions would not be acceptable.

Attorney Mary Bonauto, who represented the seven gay couples who sued the state, said the only task assigned to the Legislature is to come up with changes in the law that will allow gay couples to marry at the end of the 180-day period.

"This is a very good day for gay and lesbian families in Massachusetts and throughout the country," Bonauto said.

But the issue may find a hostile audience in the Massachusetts Legislature, which has been considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The state's powerful Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran of Boston, has endorsed this proposal.

And Republican Gov. Mitt Romney criticizing the ruling, saying: "Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that makes that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman."

A key group of state lawmakers also has recently been working behind the scenes to craft civil union legislation similar to the law passed in Vermont.

Gay and lesbian advocates had been cheered by a series of advances this year, including a U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down anti-sodomy laws, the ordination of an openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, and a Canadian appeals court ruling that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. Belgium and the Netherlands also have legalized gay marriage.

In addition to Vermont, courts in Hawaii and Alaska have previously ruled that the states did not have a right to deny marriage to gay couples. In those two states, the decisions were followed by the adoption of constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. No American court has ordered the issuance of a marriage license a privilege reserved for heterosexual couples.

The U.S. House is currently considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage. President Bush, although he believes marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman, recently said that a constitutional amendment is not yet necessary.

The Massachusetts case began in 2001, when seven gay couples went to their city and town halls to obtain marriage licenses. All were denied, leading them to sue the state Department of Public Health, which administers the state's marriage laws.

A judge threw out the case in 2002, ruling that nothing in state law gives gay couples the right to marry. The couples appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court.

The plaintiffs argued that barring them from marrying a partner of the same sex denied them access to an intrinsic human experience and violated basic constitutional rights.

The state's Attorney General's office argued that neither state law nor its constitution created a right to same-sex marriage. The state also said any decision to extend marriage to same-sex partners should be made by elected lawmakers, not the courts.

Im glad to see it. How people can be denied basic human rights is beyond me.

Maybe people will get a clue and this action will spread throughout the states. Anyone who doesnt want to see this happen is just afraid of themselves. Why would anyone want to deny anyone else of the same rights they get?

Thanks, mystic.... Your support means a lot more than you will ever know!

Here's to hoping the rest of the country follows suit!

You too, 'chel. You've been a really good friend also.
I love having support from people like you two.

"Some are not afraid of themselves, but rather obedient to God. "

They are obedient, because they are afraid.

It just upsets me that every time there is a thread that deals with gays, the bible HAS to be thrown in to it, and preached about. I'm not in the other threads, about god, tearing them apart. Amazing!!! I like the fact that there are people who are straight on INR that show their support. It makes one not feel all alone (especially being the "token" gay person on here).

And I find it amazing that people want to say God approves of this.. so... we can't agree on the topic, but since it's an open forum, guess we are going to have to get use to each side posting a defense.

I am sure most, if not all, states will follow suit, but popularity doesn't make it right.

Popularity doesn't make it right, but fundamental basic human rights makes it right.
Kooka, I know you follow the Bible to a T, but just because your book tells you to reject others, doesn't mean that the rest of the country feels that way.
Two nights ago on the news a recent poll showed that 63% of heterosexual Americans thought that Gays should have the right to marry if they wanted to.
If accepting people for who they are and being tolerant and respectful of them is against God, then I'm obviously an athiest. Because my idea of God has nothing to do with making personal judgements of others.

Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States. Gay couples are denied significant rights when they are not allowed to marry, and this results in injustices. The arguments against the legalization of same-sex marriage do not merit the legal support of the state, since the state's job is not to promote popular morality or opinion, but the rights of its citizens.

• Rights denied to committed gay couples:

One of the first claims that seems to come up when gay marriage is discussed is that homosexual relations/relationships are not biologically natural. Same-sex couples cannot naturally produce children through their union.

"Consider this. If there is a necessary link between marriage and procreation, strange consequences would follow. A state could and, to be consistent, should prohibit marriage in which one or both partners are sterile or impotent. If procreation is the essential goal of marriage, why should postmenopausal women be allowed to marry? Surely, discrimination against sterile, impotent, or aged couples would be unacceptable to citizens of many different perspectives. The rationale would be that marriage serves functions that are as important as, if not more important than, procreation, including interpersonal commitment, religious or moral expression, sexual satisfaction, and the legal entitlements associated with spousehood. If elderly, sterile, or impotent couples cannot be denied the right to marry because of a traditional link between marriage and procreation, neither can lesbian or gay couples be denied the right for that type of reason."

Another popular argument is that allowing gays to marry will further degrade the already struggling institution of marriage.

“As conservatives tirelessly and rightly point out, marriage is society’s most fundamental institution. To bar any class of people from marrying as they choose is an extraordinary deprivation. When not so long ago it was illegal in parts of America for blacks to marry whites, no one could claim that this was a trivial disenfranchisement… To outweigh such a serious claim it is not enough to say that gay marriage might lead to bad things. Bad things happened as a result of legalizing contraception, but that did not make it the wrong thing to do. Besides, it seems doubtful that extending marriage to say, another 3 or 5 percent of the population would have anything like the effects that no-fault divorce has had, to say nothing of contraception. By now, the “traditional” understanding of marriage has been sullied in all kinds of ways. It is hard to think of a bigger affront to tradition for instance, than allowing married women to own property independently of their husbands or allowing them to charge their husbands with rape. Surely it is unfair to say that marriage may be reformed for the sake of anyone and everyone except homosexuals, who must respect the dictates of tradition.”


Appeals to the tradition of marriage are illogical.

The appeal to tradition in denial of gay marriage rights has many inconsistencies. E.J. Graff, author of What is Marriage For? in 1996 points out many of them. He says “Very little about marriage is historically consistent enough to be 'traditional.' That it involves two people? Then forget the patriarch Jacob, whose two wives and two concubines produced the heads of the twelve tribes. That it involves a religious blessing? Not early Christian marriages, before marriage was a sacrament. That it is recognized by law? Forget centuries of European prole “marriages” conducted outside the law, in which no property was involved. That it’s about love, not money? So much for centuries of negotiation about medieval estates, bride-price, morning gift and dowry (not to mention bride-burnings in today’s India).” Every appeal to tradition in preservation of the present marriage laws falls into the same pit of illogically. Marriage has been different in each society throughout the ages and throughout the history of the United States.

Even some conservatives advocate the inclusion of gays in the marriage institution.

Mark Strasser, Professor of Law at Capital University in 1999, along with many self-proclaimed conservative advocates of gay marriage, argues that allowing gays to marry would increase stability in gay relationships and discourage promiscuity in the gay population. He says, “State interests in the recognition and promotion of marriage include the promotion of stability, the limitation of the disorganized breakdown of relations, and the provision of a home for the production and rearing of children.” (7) You can't accuse gays of being promiscuous, if you won't allow them access to an institution that, amoung other things, works to limit promiscuity in society.

Many people, trying to be tolerant, say that gays should have an institution for defining their partnerships legally, but they don't want gays to be included in what they see as the heterosexual-only institution of marriage. They want gay marriage to be called something else, just to define it as different. Here's the problem with the 'civil union' approach:

In Vermont a court recently legalized not marriage for gays, but a “civil union” which affords same-sex couples all the rights and privileges of married couples, but without calling it “marriage.” While I applaud Vermont’s court system for this step in the right direction, a new institution for gay couples is not the answer. It simply affirms their second-class status in American society. In the Supreme Court case Brown vs. The Board of Education, the policy of “separate but equal” with regard to race was struck down as being unconstitutional, because separate can never be equal. Creating a separate institution for gay couples is just as unequal and unconstitutional as creating separate institutions for blacks and whites.

Some claim that gay people are not being discriminated against in any way. The argument often sounds like this: Gay people are allowed to marry--they're allowed to marry people of the opposite gender.

In response to this argument I refer you again to the words of Andrew Sullivan (2): “Would any heterosexual in America believe he had a right to pursue happiness if he could not marry the person he loved? What would be more objectionable to most people — to be denied a vote in the next presidential election or to no longer have legal custody over their child or legal attachment to their wife or husband?" In America we are granted, as an unalienable right, the right to pursue our happiness. If we tell gay people that the only people they can marry are those they aren't attracted to or can't love romantically, then we are violating this right.

One of the better, less bigotted arguments against gay marriage is that the advantages that go along with legal marriage are not a right, but a reward given by our government for behavior it approves of.

Our government was set up from the very beginning, as an institution whose goal was the preservation of the rights of its citizens. Nowhere in either the constitution or the declaration of independence is there outlined a governmental responsibility or power to reward behaviors the government or the masses like. Our government’s job is to protect the rights of all of us, including those of us that are gay, not to uphold the irrational prejudices of the masses, as it is doing in this case. It is the government’s responsibility not to uphold in this case the prejudiced will of the people, no matter how much of a majority they constitute (and it's growing smaller every day folks) but to defend the rights of its people. Period.

The concept of gays, even committed gay couples, raising children seems to be anathema to many people.

There has never been any evidence that children of gay couples (either biological or adopted) are harmed by their environment. In many cases these children seem to be more well adjusted than their "normally" raised counterparts. From T. Richard Sullivan, PhD affiliated with the School of Social Work, University of British Columbia, and Albert Baques, social worker with the B.C. Ministry for Children and Families, 1999 we learn that “The assumption that a gay and lesbian orientation is anathema to child rearing reflects homophobia and the idealization of a particular family structure that is assumed to be morally superior…[In fact though, research shows that]no differences in well-being and normative functioning have been found between children reared by heterosexuals and those raised by lesbian or gay parents. 'The fear that children raised by homosexuals will grow up to be lesbian or gay suggests that it would be awful if that were the case. In order to prove that they are worthy parents, lesbians and gay men have had to prove that they are not likely to raise children who will grow up to be like them' (Benkov). This despite the fact that studies of over 300 offspring of gay or lesbian parents in twelve different samples have indicated no evidence of significant disturbances in the development of sexual identity.”

In addition, common evidence that children of gay couples are healthy and normal is that they grow up to lead heterosexual lifestyles. What if you told a Christian couple that it was bad if their children grew up to be Christians? I doubt that would go over very well. But this is what gay couples are told every day. The only way their children can be normal, can prove that their parents haven't harmed them, is if they grow up to lead a heterosexual lifestyle. Granted, many gay couples would never wish their struggles against prejudice on their children, but telling them that if their children grow up to be like them they are horrible parents--I call that a subtle form of psychological torture.

The other problem with assuming that heterosexual households are the superior environment for raising children is this: "[Gay couples and their children] present family units many in our society believe to be outside the mainstream of American family life. The reality, however, is that most children today do not live in so-called "traditional"…families with a stay-at-home mother and a father who works from 9:00 to 5:00. According to Bureau of Census statistics, twenty-five percent of children today are born out-of-wedlock to single women, mostly young, minority, and impoverished; half of all marriages end in divorce; and married couples with children now make up only twenty-six percent of United States households. It is unrealistic to pretend that children can only be successfully reared in an idealized concept of family, the product of nostalgia for a time long past."

Again, there is a conservative argument in favor of allowing gay couples to not only raise their own children without interferance, but to adopt children. Mark Strasser, Professor of Law at Capital University in 1999 argues: “same-sex couples are having and raising children, even if those children are not produced though their union. Indeed, some states recognize both members of same-sex couples as the legal parents of the same child, precisely because this will promote the best interests of that child. Thus, some commentators’ claims notwithstanding, the state’s interest in assuring that children will have a healthy, supportive environment in which to thrive militates in favor of the recognition of same-sex marriage rather than against it.”


I hope that the arguments I've provided here aid your efforts to bring understanding to the people around you. The only way to achieve equality for these members of our society is to fight to create change. In many cases, opinions are changed one person at a time. Now you are armed against your next encounter with the prejudiced and closed-minded.

I'm not going to argue a point where both sides disagree. I will give one blanket statement as to how I feel about what America is doing, and you guys can carry on with whatever lifestyle you see fit for your life.

Chelktty, lawmakers go by what the majority want as a rule. God does not. So if you can justify going against God based on what the Americans, or even the whole world wants, then so be it for you.

Those that believe God is against sexual immorality will just watch as God's wrath comes against the United States of America. We have tried to warn everyone what's going to happen if America messes with God's plans.

God sanctified marriage between one man and one woman, and mankind has taken His marriage definition and perverted it to unspeakable depths.

Also, unrelated to this, but adding to the wrath of God for Americans, is Israel. Watch what happens when America sticks its nose into God's covenant land He gave to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob forever. Our government is trying to part Israel in a peace settlement with the Palestine AGAINST what God has set as a covenant. So, on top of homosexuality and going against God concerning Israel, judgement is being brought to the Americans because we messed with what God sanctified.

With that said, you go on with your fight to bring rights to people who go against God. This has nothing at all to do with accepting people for who they are. It has to do with rejecting anything God speaks out against. God is not rejecting the human, but rather the sin.

I don't want the wrath of God to be against the US, but the way things are going, it looks like our government is going to do what the people want instead of what God wants.

If you don't believe me, I recommend you getting the book "Israel the Blessing or the Curse" and see how the events lined up. Every time the US meets with Arabs to go over the peace talks and divide Israel's land in exchange for peace, look at what happens to the US. I'm not going to spell out the wrath of God in this thread because I already planned on putting it in P&T.

I'm well aware the majority does not see a problem with the basic rights you are fighting for. I'm well aware you are upset because you view this as a rejection of people, but it is not a rejection of people, it's a rejection of going against God's plans.

Carry on with your threads fighting for gay rights. Just remember, God is a just and fair God, and America will get what it deserves for going against Him.

There is a lot of talk about the majority supporting this decision, i saw a poll saying only 34% of the country is in favor of homosexual unions.
There is also a lot of talk about marriage being a basic right for anybody who wants it. What if someone wanted to marry his daughter, or sister? Should the state make such a union official? What if someone wanted to marry his cat? What if 4 consenting adults wanted to get married to each other, is baligamy a "basic human right?" My point is the government discriminates against a lot of unions, and if you look at it in this way, homosexuals are being given SPECIAL treatment. I'm sure most supporters of this court ruling would still be against the government enfranchising incestual marriage.
Look, people can do whatever they want, but marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman. Period. The government should not be strong-armed into turning something holy into something political. If gay couples want to spend their lives together, more power to them, but the governement shouldn't have to condone everybody's desires.

You know Jrk, it never ceases to amaze me that you compare homosexuals to degenerates such as men who commit incest on their daughters. That's sick.
Marriage is considered to many as a "holy" union, yes that's true. But in the USA it's now considered a civil and legal union. If marriage was only for "holy" unions, why allow people of other religions to wed? Wouldn't that be unholy? And what happens when a "holy" union dissolves? During divorce proceedings when everything gets REALLY ugly, are the divorcing parties then considered "unholy"? Should they at that point never again be allowed to remarry because they're already unholy and as you've pointed out, marriage is only for a "holy" union. I guess this means that athiests shouldn't get married either.
It is a LEGAL and CIVIL union. Period.

Then gay couples should be allowed to have civil unions, not marriages. Marriage denotes something more than a legal binding, something religious and holy. As for other religions, they all see marriage in the same light, i can only speak for our country which was founded on christian morality.
It is this foundation on christian morality that makes you think incest is immoral. I think it's funny that you can't see that. Why is incest imoral? Why are father/daughter or brother/sister unions disgusting to you? Because they are denounced in the bible and you have been raised in a society that has the bible as its basic foundation of morality, whether you admit it or not.
Homosexuality is also biblically denounced, the only difference is that a social movement came along with all sorts of propoganda desensitizing you to homosexuality. Your concept of morality goes no deeper than politics. If we as a nation are going to go against our foundations of morality in the case of homosexuality, then what rationale are we to use when someone sues to marry his daughter, or sister, or camel? How can we tell Mormans that they cannot have more than one wife because it is immoral, when we have decided that questionable morality is not enough to keep us from enfranchising homosexual couples.
I just want someone to explain why we can abandon moral concerns in this case, but uphold them elsewhere? And not you chelkty, you have said that you don't see how homosexuality relates to incest or baligamy, if you cannot concede something as obvious as the fact that the innate christian morality of our country views homosexuality as inherently unethical, and therefore comparable to incest, baligamy, bestiality, etc., then it is impossible for us to have an intelligent debate on this matter. (of course one would have to wonder why there is such opposition to homosexual unions if nobody actually thinks homosexuality is immoral)

Originally posted by jrkiv
There is also a lot of talk about marriage being a basic right for anybody who wants it. What if someone wanted to marry his daughter, or sister? Should the state make such a union official? What if someone wanted to marry his cat?

That statement cracks me up (sarcastically speaking)....

A cat ???? A sister??? a Daughter???

How do you go from one end of the spectrum to the next? They are so totally different! And then you talk about ANIMALS? C'mon!!!



What if 4 consenting adults wanted to get married to each other, is baligamy a "basic human right?" My point is the government discriminates against a lot of unions, and if you look at it in this way, homosexuals are being given SPECIAL treatment.

Actually its the other way around.....They arent getting SPECIAL treatment...they are trying to get EQUAL treatment!


I'm sure most supporters of this court ruling would still be against the government enfranchising incestual marriage.
Look, people can do whatever they want, but marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman. Period. The government should not be strong-armed into turning something holy into something political. If gay couples want to spend their lives together, more power to them, but the governement shouldn't have to condone everybody's desires.


Are you sure that you arent afraid of something? Something perhaps inside of yourself. Do you lack so much confidence in yourself that you dont want others to be treated as you in in this world?

Just a thought.

Due to the inability of some forum members to recognize the obvious, i'm going to try a new strategy. Mystic, if homosexuality is different from all of these other acts, then tell me why. Nobody has tried to do that. All i get is, "homosexuality and incest? THey are totally unrelated." The statements go no further, i want someone to tell me how they are unrelated.
Come on people, if you are going to make a statement about two things being different, tell everybody why.
Mystic, as for your last comment i found that totally inappropriate. Perhaps a little predjudice there? Can someone disagree with you and not be insecure in some way? Your last statement is known as a genetic attack, you disagree with my position so you attack my person, all in all it's pretty juvenile. I come to this forum hoping to engage in debates over issues, not over individuals' characters. I happen to believe that homosexuality is inherently immoral, alongside incest, bestiality, baligamy, prostitution and other things. It is an act that has no victim, but is immoral all the same. I want you to tell me why you believe these other things are immoral and homosexuality isn't. I want you to give me reasons why a brother and his sister who are in love and want to get married should be turned away by the state, but two men or two women shouldn't. Simple question, and i want reasons, not some blanket statement like you've been giving like "they're just different OK, trust me on this one dude."

Lol mystic, i just read your last post which actually attacks God. Your reasoning is infantile.
Let me give you an example of your argument against God.
Major Premise: If someone takes issue with a group that performs certain actions, that person is unjust.
Minor Premise: Federal judges tend to take issue with rapists, murders, thieves, and perjurers.
Conclusion: Federal judges are unjust.

Of course that is just an analogy, but i think we all get the point. God takes issue with murderers, hence he must be unjust, since murderers are certain kinds of people. Your logic is ASTONISHING. Justice is attained in upholding the law, and GOd's law says homosexuality is a sin. Of course we are all sinners in some way or another, so even the most pious person in the world is still culpable in the eyes of God. (Hence his provision of Jesus Christ, who's love redeems all who ask for it, including homosexuals, rapists, and Ted Bundy) I just find it humous that you want a God that doesn't uphold his own law, and you want "justice" that doesn't recognize injustice.

Chelkty, i asked you not to respond because i knew you are incapable of intellectual debate.
You say incest is immoral because it disgusts you, MOST OF THE PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH HOMOSEXUALITY FOR THE SAME REASON. How are you unable to see that? Are you some kid on your dad's computer? If so, this is a forum for adults.
Your next contention was incest and bestiality are illegal, hence immoral. Wow. That is as bad of logic as mystic. THOSE THINGS ARE ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY ARE IMMORAL, not the other way around dummy. Homosexual unions are illegal in almost every state in america, because they are still commonly considered immoral. By your own logic homosexual unions are immoral (after all they're illegal). So i guess we agree, unless you want to change your position which you will undoubtedly do with your next post. Goodness, can i get anybody to argue with me using valid logic.
As for my "little book" being the source of my arguments, it's actually quite a big book. And it is also the source of your morality, (you call incest immoral because it feels that way, that's because you were brought up in a judeo-christian society).

And by the way, I still love the fact that Chelkty and Mystic insist on saying i hate gay people because i disagree with their actions.
How can i argue against such people who choose to flail out at me when i talk them into a corner. If disagreeing with someone inevitably means you hate them, then mystic and chelkty hate me, and everybody else they have ever posted a response to. ONce again, for the third time in 3 posts, the logic displayed by you guys is laughable.
"Jrkiv disagrees with homosexuality, hence he hates homosexuals"
These are the mental giants i am "debating" with, is there anybody else out there who will address this matter from a philosophical standpoint rather than one fueled by emotion, politics, and contempt?

Ok, double teamed and still no responses that are pertinent to the debate at hand.
Still nobody has told me WHY homosexuality is different from incest or baligamy. Mystic, in his/her genius, has dodged the question by saying exactly what i asked him/her not to say, "if you can't tell the difference... then i'm sorry for you." WOW
I ask for reasons, and that's what i get. I am not even going to answer the religious attacks, neither of you have an understanding of christianity, so i won't debate it with you. Yes, God loves everybody including homosexuals (i am also called to love everybody including homosexuals, despite your accusations of hate) but that doesn't mean he approves of what everybody does. Which brings us back to the LEGAL debate at hand, homosexuality, morality, and the government's role in each.
Mystic, you said the difference between homosexuality and beastiality is that one is an animal, and that the other is "another person with whom someone is in love." If a person genuinely loves an animal, then how is that different? Aren't you denying that person of basic rights? If a brother and a sister truly love each other, then how can we say that's immoral if homosexuality isn't? Aren't you denying that brother and sister their basic rights? If 4 people truly want to marry 1 man, then how can we tell them no? AREN'T YOU DENYING THEM THEIR BASIC RIGHTS? You claim these things are different, because they "feel" different to you, where is the objectivity in that? THe majority of the country "feels" that homosexual unions are immoral, why not respect the majority's opinion? Because you want homosexuals to have rights, but at the same time deny similar rights to others because of a "feeling." My point is you can't have it both ways, either the law makes decisions based on morality, or it doesn't and makes decisions solely on consent. Anything else would be hippocritical.
Chelktty, i'm not trying to convert anyone, this forum is discussing a legal decision. My question pertains to the law (although you keep diverting the issue with insults and digressions). I have nothing to argue with you because you can't grasp the basic concept that most citizens in this country think certain things are inherently unethical, incest, prostitution, drug-use, etc. They are illegal not because they have victims, but because they are commonly considered immoral. Homosexuality is one of these things. I am not suggesting we shun homosexuals, i am not suggesting we treat anybody poorly, I HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED ANYTHING OF THE SORT, despite the words you put in my mouth. Listen up: I AM SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT ENFRANCHISE UNIONS OF QUESTIONABLE MORALITY. Period, that's it. You call it discrimination, I call it maintaining the integrity of marriage, which despite your conetention that it is purely a secular and meaningless legal title, I believe is a holy thing, and so does the majority of the country. If a legal exception is made for homosexuals, then there is nothing that will prevent the marriage of people to siblings, children, animals, etc.
Listen people, it's a matter of precedent. A legal ruling on homosexuality will read like this, "this court etc. etc. etc... cannot uphold a ban on homosexual unions because it is not in the court's power to override the mutual consent of adults."
Let the floodgates open! I hope you are ready to live in a society of incestual marriages and baligamy (actually you two probably wouldn't mind, after all everybody should have the right to have their union recognized by the government right?)
Call me what you want, i won't back down because of insults. We're all sinners, but that doesn't mean we should condone sinning. I happen to be someone has stolen and robbed in the past, but i still don't want a society that says those things are OK. Call me hateful if you want, I guess that's standard procedure when arguing with a conservative, but if you knew me you wouldn't say so.