"Nor shall any State...............deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." 14th Amendment.
It is indeed Ironic that even as we achieve a historic racial milestone by electing a black, liberal President, religious bigotry is flourishing. What don't these morons understand about individual liberty and equal protection under the law?
Defense of Marriage argument: Ridiculous on the face of it. About 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. The average climbs up to 80% when subsequent marriages are counted. God forbids it argument: Sorry, separation of church and state. Its repulsive argument: Well, O.K., then why can't we pass a law preventing big, fat hairy people from getting married because the majority is repulsed by the thought of them having sex? Wake up idiots! Stop pandering to your fears about queers. In the future you will be viewed the same way most of us view racists of the past.

Jill, I can support the notion of homosexual "equality." And we've come a long way since the infamous Boise of Boise days. (Remember? From what I understand, homosexuals were put on a list similar to the "Pride Depot" list, and targeted on account of their sexual orientation. And, I s'pose, their pedophilia, which is still frowned upon to this day.)

Homosexuals should have some sort of "civil union" that's recognized by the government (if the government is in the marriage business... maybe they should just butt out altogether).

But, Jill... surely you can appreciate that some folks sincerely believe this is NOT "firmly political," as you assert. It's not a stretch to understand why people could consider it a moral issue, if you're open-minded and want to understand another viewpoint.

I'm personally against Gay MARRIAGE, for historical reasons! Webster: "marriage - the institution whereby men and women are joined..." (Was Webster a homophobe or a gay-hater?) Would a "civil union" status be too much of a compromise for the homosexual community? (I believe many folks who voted FOR Prop 8 would support a "civil union" status.)

Of course, I s'pose it wouldn't be unprecented to force a rewrite of the dictionary. When I was a kid, "gay" meant "happily excited." (Homosexuals were called "queers," which, literally speaking, is probably more accurate than "gay," since there are many happy heterosexuals, and many miserable homosexuals.)

Bikeboy, The definition I heard was "an intimate or close union".
But if you are against gay marriage for "historical" reasons, perhaps you should be a little more "intimate" with the history of marriage (with a particular emphasis on the European tradition, as I assume from the social clues you exude that you are an Anglo male). I'm going to refer to the Wikipedia marriage article for most of this. If you have problems with the sources referred to by Wikipedia then perhaps you could explain your specific allegations.

Prior to the Middle Ages, most marriages were by consent, with little or no ceremony or paperwork. In fact, a very common way people got "married" was they had sex (and got caught). Maybe as a stickler for "history" you want this standard back bikeboy? You ever gave ole' history the finger and slept with someone you didn't want to marry?
It was at the Council of Trent (1542) that the Church set up rules and tithes and all that for people to get married. All rules about getting a license and deducting stuff off your taxes have been added to marriage since the 1600's.
Prior to the Council of Trent, if there was paperwork or official recognition of a marriage, it was usually because one family was richer than the other and wanted to keep family property in the family.
Through much of European history, gay marriage was just as legal as straight marriage in the European (which makes sense because again it just happened and usually didn't involve paperwork) until the Emperor Constantine outlawed it in 342 C.E..
"History" obviously fails your argument. In fact, I bet with a few minutes worth of the Google, we could probably establish that the rules against interracial marriage have just as long and codified a history as those against gay marriage. Am I to assume you are also against interracial marriage?

"Am I to assume you are also against interracial marriage?"
It is generally a pretty safe assumption, flatfish...

I'd say it's as safe an assumption as if one were to assume that everyone who supports gay marriage because "everyone should be able to marry whoever they want to" would also support polygamy and incestuous marriages, flatfish.

The fact remains that everyone who is of age and isn't currently married or incarcerated has the same right to marry exactly one unmarried, of age, not-closely-related person of the opposite sex as anyone else. GLBT have this exact same right as heterosexuals, they may choose not to exercise it. Society grants civil rights based on what a consensus believes is good for society -- as an example, society has decided that encouraging heterosexual marriage results in more stable families, and young married men are known to commit fewer crimes on average than young unmarried men. I think many people (myself included) just don't like the courts imposing this against the specifically demonstrated will of the people. There are exceptions, of course: Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education was needed, but it was Congress (a legislative body) passing the Civil Rights Act that really got the country on track to recognize the importance and rightness of this issue. If gay rights activists believe so many people support them, then why not get some state to pass a bill legalizing gay marriage? That still hasn't been done, not even in Massachusetts.

Homophobia still got ya by the balls, eh, bubblehead?

Nope... I don't recall that I've ever been homophobic. I'd be opposed to polygamy dictated by the courts as well, as well as a court finding additional "rights" like a "right to be protected from abuse because of irrational statements". But if you want to call everyone who opposes a court's imposition of gay marriage "homophobic" -- despite any evidence to support that characterization -- as a method of getting support for your position, please feel free to continue. You may also want to call all those who didn't vote for President-elect Obama "racists".

Nothing about legal gay marriage would affect any other "benefit of state sanctioned marriage you cite; I believe you cited familial stability and lower crime rates Bubbahead. In fact, if two young men married each other, by your reasoning this has twice the benefit effect to society of a hetero marriage, as you are taking two potential young males out of the stupid criminal pool!
I know that the usual hatewinger proclaims that marriage is about family, and they commonly cite raising children as THE reason for marriage, but it's funny, I have never once heard of the hatewingers proposing amendments making it illegal for the infertile, the elderly, or people who don't want kids to get married. Do you think people who are too old to raise children should be legally allowed to marry? And if marriage is so beneficial, why is divorce legal, maybe that should be your next ballot amendment?

Why is it that normal people are considered to have an irrational fear, while perverts are considered to be normal?

Tom, perhaps you could tell us a little about yourself, so that we may determine your fitness as a judge of who is "normal" and who is a "pervert"? I suppose your definitions of such things might be in order as well.
As to myself, I tend to think that priests that molest children are perverts, but the Catholic Church protects them and their accomplices, yet dumps millions of dollars into fighting against gay marriage, so go figure...

Flounder -- dude -- please show me where I ever said, or even implied, that homosexual marriage wouldn't offer those same benefits. Look, I voted against the Idaho constitutional amendment in 2006. I'm pointing out that society as a whole has not determined that homosexual marriage should be a right; on the other hand, they have clearly determined that divorce should be a right, as all state legislatures have passed laws on how to deal with divorce. My point, which you seem unwilling/unable to understand, is that there are many people who want the judicial system to interpret the law, and not make law/new rights in direct opposition to the ballot-expressed will of the people.

How can judges "interpret" the law if they find cases where it doesn't make any sense, or contradicts a higher law (i.e. Constitutional Law) and they aren't allowed to strike down such laws or "interpret" how the current law is applied? This is all the CA Court did, they said that the current law, as written, did not preclude same-sex marriage, and therefore such marriages were permissible, and in fact should have been allowed all along.
And Tom is a perfect example of how letting the majority decide what civil rights they want to allow and disallow is incredibly dangerous. Let's say that Tom thinks any sex besides missionary is as he says for "perverts". This isn't crazy, as Tom didn't say what his standard of perversion is, and what perversions he wants to cast judgment upon. Many churches have preached the Missionary standard in the past and some of the really creepy ones do now. Now let's say these creepy churches round up enough people to pass laws, whether local, state, or federal; they would be legislating what two consenting adults are doing in their bedrooms. And that is really what they are trying to do here.

Bubblehead,

While one of the roles of the judiciary in our society is to interpret the laws, another role is also to protect the rights of minorities from the "tyranny of the majority." There have been numerous instances throughout our nation's history in which the majority has attempted to restrict rights to certain minorities (for example Jim Crow laws) and it has been the courts which have stepped in to overturn those laws. I submit that we are a more mature and healthy society as a result of those court actions. I further submit that within a decade, these restrictions on gay marriage will similarly be overturned and that will also lead to an improved and more enlightened society.

I agree that, in the more "progressive" states, restrictions on gay marriage will be overturned in 10-20 years. As long as it's by legislative action or referendum, I have no problem with that. The courts do serve the purpose you say in some cases; in this case, however, the invention of a new right -- one which has no basis in history (flounder's claim of historical gay marriage in Rome notwithstanding -- despite his curious claim that marriage itself has no historical basis) is one that, I believe, goes beyond the appropriate role of judicial review. (Anyway, it was the Civil Rights Act that finally overturned the Jim Crow laws -- and remember it was the Supreme Court that allowed them in the first place in Plessy v. Ferguson, which was finally overturned by Topeka.)

lets not think about what really matter, like the fools in washington dc lets all worry about if gayes can marry, the fun part of this is you really don't need the goverments permission to marry anyone. it you not the goverment that owns your life.

Rugged individuality running rampant on the neo-frontier..?