http://statenews.com. Protesters are lining up in Lansing and other cities around the country — all for a proposal from California’s state elections last November. Proposition 8, which passed in the election, outlawed same-sex marriage throughout the state and later became subject to a state Supreme Court review. en-us Gryphon 2.2.3b-tsn (woodward)/Foundry5 Thu, 28 May 2009 11:38:00 -0400 webmaster@statenews.com http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40075 I’m sorry but this is about more than a single word. It is about gay unions being equally recognized under the law as marriages. I don’t know how the religious right can be so thick-headed as to think that such a thing would damage traditional marriage and the traditional family. All that the homosexual population asks is that the LAW recognize gay marriages. They don’t give a damn if religious folks recognize it or not. Churches still can choose not to marry two men or two women in a religious ceremony. That’s just freedom of religion. Enforcement of God’s law, however, ought not to be written in man’s law. If anything, theocracy only cheapens Biblical law, as it is not the place of man to enforce it. While it is often argued that “Thou shalt not kill”, “Thou shalt not steal”, etc. appear in our laws, those are crimes that involve victims. Who is the victim of gay marriage? That’s right, no one. No one at all. Furthermore, majority rule on such decisions is often overvalued. This may sound anti-democratic, but in reality, it can lead to the oppression of minorities, and in such cases, the courts are the only means by which they can defend themselves against the tyranny of the majority. There was a time when most Virginia voters would have voted against interracial marriage had it become a ballot initiative, and I hope no one on our campus today thinks that would be right. Rather, it was brought to the Supreme Court, and the ruling on Loving v. Virginia was that the prohibition of interracial marriage was unconstitutional. Integration of schools would likely have been voted down by an overwhelming majority in the South as well had it not been left to the courts rather than a bigoted populace. Moreover, given the chance to vote on the right of heterosexual couples to marry, I feel certain that homosexuals would not be inclined to take that right away from the majority. These people don’t want to hurt anyone’s marriage. They just want us to recognize theirs, and there is no argument that can ever be made to back the ludicrous notion that any harm could come from doing so. Period. Thu, 28 May 2009 02:00:45 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40075 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40076 “ .. They just want us to recognize theirs ..” Uh, minor details .. Tradition of male-female marriage dates back to 5000 BC in China .. that’s a 7,000-year head-start .. And about race? Uh .. in Prop. 8, most Asian-Americans and African-Americans voted NO .. Uh .. BHO said no on homosexual marriage. Isn’t he always right? As noted by Elton John — CIVIL UNIONS SUFFICIENT. Thu, 28 May 2009 07:45:46 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40076 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40079 I could really care one way or the other — I just don’t understand why social conservatives don’t try to pick their fights. Gay marriage will be legal in 20 years in most, if not all, states due to each coming generation’s growing acceptance and the fact that the baby boomers will be dying off en masse. And the younger generations really will look at us as we do those who think blacks shouldn’t marry whites. If you look at the big picture, it’s completely a losing argument. They should be focusing their efforts on other abominations — like rock and roll music and men with long hair! Thu, 28 May 2009 09:07:38 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40079 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40083 I think that on both sides of the debate there is confusion between civil marriage and a marriage in a church. Both sides need to wake up and realize that they are not the same thing. Thu, 28 May 2009 09:55:05 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40083 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40102 This fight is about more than a word, SN. In the country, “separate but equal” went out the door with Plessy v. Ferguson and that’s exactly what civil unions are, a separate albeit equal institution. The definition of marriage has shifted over time (from financial to romantic motives) and will continue to do so until all Americans are granted the rights they deserve, without the second class status of civil unions. Thu, 28 May 2009 11:38:00 -0400 http://statenews.com./index.php/comment/view/40102