Bob McDonnell's fight against equality in Virginia

[MrFantastico321]

At the end of the day. What are we talkin about here??? The right for homosexuals to bitch slap each other in court over the custody of children they could not even conceive together. The whole domestic system is such a slow, fucked up, money wasting process already. Now, the homos wanna jump in and make it worse. What a cluster fuck!!! If you wanna choose to have sex with one of the same sex, fine. Please don't choose to make a gov. mess any more messy.

[vonschteiben]

Sadly, I feel the comments have taken the path of the Duchess in Alice in Wonderland. `I quite agree with you,' said the Duchess; `and the moral of that is--Be what you would seem to be--or if you'd like it put more simply--Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.'

[vonschteiben]

The majority of Americans oppose you on this issue.. And it is not just the moral majority that defines the issue. As the court said in Hernandez (2006), just one of the reasons for making marriage between a man and a woman is "it is better, other things being equal, for children

to grow up with both a mother and a

father. Intuition and experience suggest

that a child benefits from having before his

or her eyes, every day, living models of

what both a man and a woman are like."

[vbprogressives]

The court, however, cannot guarantee what the atmosphere is like within a home, and whether those "models" are beneficial at all. Further, due to the fact that the benefits associated with marriage are extended without regard to whether there are or will be children makes this example moot.

[vbprogressives]

That should properly ready "The shrinking majority of Americans..."

I wonder what polling data on slavery and segregation looked like.

[vonschteiben]

No, try as you might, it is impossible to define gay marriage as a civil rights issue. As I said , most state courts deny that argument. Restricting marriage by race is far different than restricting marriage based on gender, blood kin, bigamy, etc. The great majority of the American public is opposed to gay marriage (See the Pew Family research council article entitled Public Opinion on Gay Marriage: Opponents Consistently Outnumber Supporters .

[vbprogressives]

People are gay, they do form households and should have the same rights and privileges as a straight couple.

According to a recent CBS News/New York Times Poll, 63% of respondents were in favor of either gay marriage or civil unions, with 33% in favor of gay marriage.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll reported that 54% were against gay marriage.

There are no "great majorities". However, we have seen about a 10% increase in support for gay marriage since 2004.

[vonschteiben]

Hmmm. The Pew poll was dated last month and reported a sizable opposition to gay marriage. The New York Times/CBS poll was dated in April, and although showing support for gay marriage rising, still reported opposition to it by a 57% to 42% margin. And, of course, that poll is known to pack its respondents with more liberals, as does CNN.

[earthl33]

not if we're seen as a race and not a blight. Marriage was once illegal between races. When we're seen as a race, and not some optional oddities because we "choose to be gay", will we be taken seriously.

[earthl33]

Take off the blinders boo! I'm lovin' all the legal speak and stats, but let's take it to the streets. The great majority!!! Please VONscheiben. Haven't we come a long way since your name was wrought with evil sentiment.  Get off your moral majority high horse. The "PEW" family. Really...... I'll go get my research from the MCC Pews and then we'll confer. We're not trying to marry our cousins. Or three of them. Just each other. What makes one man and one woman so special?

[vonschteiben]

Ah yes, Loving v. Virginia. This was a landmark civil rights case that guaranteed all the rights to black people enjoyed by white people -- one of which was the right to marry. However, nowhere in that case did it guarantee the right of marriage as a constitutional right to anyone of any sex. Most states have rejected the argument of Loving v. Virginia to guarantee gay marriage.  Look at Hernandez v. Robles, a 2006 case in New York. Also see Anderson v. Kings County, 2006 in Washington.

[vbprogressives]

It's the same issue. Ignorance and bigotry defining wha is and isn't acceptable in society, regardless of reality. It's the same whether about interracial marriage then or same-sex marriage now.

[SebastienCade]

@vonschteiben

LOL why not read the Loving v. Virginia case? Black people had the "same rights" as white people, all races could marry someone of their own race. Loving allowed a white female to marry a black male, while 70% of the country was still against interracial marriages! Also, in the case, the Supreme Court ruled marriage a "basic right of man". So, excuse your ignorance.

[vonschteiben]

Marriage has never been one of those fundamental rights protected by the equal rights amendment. Consequently, states have always had the power to regulate marriage to prohibit a mentally retarded adult from marrying, first cousins from marrying, a brother from marrying his sister, prohibition of polygamy, the prohibition of persons of certain incompatible blood types , and even young people marrying without adult consent.. Do you consider these as violations of equal rights?

[vbprogressives]

It was once said by a judge in Virginia that, "Almighty God created the races...and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

The decision of this judge and his remarked led the way to the Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia.

From that case, we were told, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man..."

[vbprogressives]

Sound familiar?

[vonschteiben]

BOGUS!!!! Calling for the institution of marriage to be stated as between a man and woman as it has been defined for hundreds of years is calling for inequality in Virginia? So, we are supposed to redefine marriage to placate that small minority of people who want to see marriages between homosexuals, transsexuals, and maybe even animals and people? Is this what this is all about?

[vbprogressives]

Yes it is inequality, and yes you are supposed to "redefine" marriage based on reality. Liberty and justice for all, means liberty and justice for all. Equal protection under the law, means equal protection. Not having any state make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States means that all citizens should have equal access to the privileges, such as marriage.