Im a conservative for gay marriage. There are lots of us. However, most of us are under 35 and live in cities. Most of my friends usually say "who gives a ****, let them do what they want" when the topic comes up.
I didn't want to start another thread on gay marriage, but the case is going on right now in the bay area and this reporter is using Twitter to keep people updated on the status. Some interesting bits. The Link Oilfield - Yes, I think we ALL should love when our judicial system works to promote equality, even if the majority of citizens lag behind. I think that's beautiful.
the right to equal access and protection under the laws. but are we really going to re-hash all this here?
The state must protect the civil rights of the minorities. _________________________________________________ I didnt realize marriage between two adult white males qualified as a protected civil right and a minority class.
and 100 years ago, folks like yourself didn't "realize" that a black man and a white woman had a "right" to be married. Looking back, those folks seem foolish, do they not?
The title of the article is misleading, since there is not "conservative case" for gay marriage. Theodore Olsen is simply a conservative lawyer arguing the others side of the issue.
I don't care one way or another, put it on a ballot and I vote against. It should not be on a ballot. Another thing, I don't necessarily think it is a conservative thing, I think it is more of a church thing. I know many a church going lefties that are against gay marriage. I know a few conservative gays, which actually has a pretty big organization.
are we really going to re-hash all the arguments? you won't change your tune and i'm not going to change mine, so let's just see how the court case turns out and what grounds they use to decide it. at least it'll be something fresh to discuss. the denial of rights is not based on sexuality...just as you don't have to be in love, or heterosexual, to get married to someone of the opposite sex. in that respect, ALL people are denied the right to marry someone of the same sex. now maybe you don't care about that right, but other folks do, and no one has given us a sound basis for denying those rights. care to be the first?
and 100 years ago, folks like yourself didn't "realize" that a black man and a white woman had a "right" to be married. __________________________________________________ Neither me nor anyone like me has ever had a problem with a male and female of any race getting it on either casually or through marriage. We would have had the same opinion 100 years ago. im kind of for mother natures plan...males and females of a species procreating.
alden - he's going to make the argument that gay people have the same rights as straight people - to marry someone of the opposite sex - and that therefore no one is actually being discriminated against. he's tried this before. Coel has used this line of thinking to suggest that there is nothing discriminatory or unconstitutional about a law that would require marriages to be between one white person and one black person.
Coel - do you use the same reasoning to ask that question as you used to assert your notion that a one-black/one-white law would be legal and constitutional? if so, we are right to discard your opinion at the onset because it leads to completely absurd conclusions like your one-white/one-black law. let's just say that you're "right" that gay people are not actually being "discriminated against" since it's ALL people who do not have access to same-sex marriage. how do you think that helps your case? also, i'm still waiting for an answer on this one. i said "no one has given us a sound basis for denying those rights. care to be the first?". so, do you?
