Personally, I think it's a bad idea for The State to be involved with marriage in any way, shape or form.

"It's always a bad assumption that those who disagree with you are hateful bigots, and that's all the more true in a complicated situation like changing the definition of marriage."

These are perhaps the wisest words I have heard in a long time; unfortunately, people often react too emotionally to the issue of gay marriage. As soon as one hears "I am opposed to gay marriage put upon us by the courts" people take it (incorrectly) to mean "I am opposed to all instances of gay marriage." That is an invalid conclusion to make, based on an erroneous assumption.

But you said that already in your post. Kudos. Now if only everyone else could be as logical about everything else as you are about this.

The citizenry doesn't get to decide what the state constitution means.

Shawn:

I completely agree, but since the state is in the marriage business, under the equal protection clause it can't arbitrarily decide not to recognize some marriages just because it would be politically unpopular to do so. They can't be basing the decision to recognize "traditional marriage" and not SSM because of procreation, since sterile couples are allowed to marry. It can't be because gay men would sully the tradition somehow, because Britney Spears and Nicky Hilton are allowed to marry, So what is the basis?

It's all fine and well to talk about "changing the mind of the citizenry", but we're talking about a tiny, tiny minority here which has a huge complex of forces (evangelicals, the "ex-gay" movement) arrayed against it. Surely there's some precedent for the judiciary intervening to protect minority rights even when the decision is politically unpopular no? (And yes, I know, some people apparently don't think that the right to marry is a right at all. I'm working from the opposite premise and not trying to have that argument here.)

And Karol, again my point is not that everyone who disagrees with me is a "hateful bigot", but that it's disengenuous to act as if hateful bigots don't comprise some portion of anti-SSM agitators (I'm talking about those who are categorically against SSM ever, in any form, even if a plesbicite were called, as distinct from those who happen to be against some given court decision). I still think the idea that Alan Keyes, who disowned his loyal daughter simply because she's a lesbian, is making some refined argument about judicial tyranny and isn't simply a bigot is ridiculous. That's what I was saying then and that's what I'm saying now.

"The citizenry doesn't get to decide what the state constitution means."

Wow. Does that sound offensive to anyone else?

Is it the lawyer in her, the Democrat, or a horrible combination of both that makes that statement reek of liberal elitism?

So I suppose a single, hyper-liberal appellate court judge should decide what our laws should be?

Trying to get this done by attempting an end run around the "citizenry" is only going to put the entire cause of gay and lesbian "acceptance" back a few decades. And, of course, boost Republicans as the sole defenders of small town "values".

I don't mind you folks doing shooting yourselves in the foot, but I'd rather win the old fashioned way: having better ideas.

Not because the other side had an ideological meltdown.

Um, Sean, if the judiciary isn't supposed to interpret laws then what exactly is its function? The argument that social conservatives make is that judges sometimes make law when they should merely be interpreting it. No one is actually going so far as to say that judges shouldn't even be empowered to interpret the constiution, since, after all, that's their job. I mean, at least I hope no one's arguing that.

The difference between "making law" and "interpreting the constitution" is -- and always has been -- whether the speaker likes the result.

Sean,

With respect to the statement,

"The citizenry doesn't get to decide what the state constitution means."

I think it could come from John Locke, or the Framers of the Constitution. Or perhaps, Marbury v. Madison. Not sure.

Have you read either the Mass opinion or the NY opinion?

The Mass opinions are at http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/maglmarriage20304.html & http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf.

New York State opinion at http://www.lambdalegal.org/binary-data/LAMBDA_PDF/pdf/378.pdf

The arguments are compelling. My problem with the decisions is that I don't think that they should have required gay marriage, I think that they should have invalidated all of the benefits bestowed on married couples.

Hey,
I'm doing this debate at school agianst gay marriage, the side of the debate wasn't my chioce. But if any of you have any thoughts on why gay marriage is wrong I'd like it if you shared them.

My uncle was gay (died of aids) and it's a pretty touchy issue in my family. So if you have any thoughts at all please post them.
Thanks agian,
Anonymous