Two steps forward, three steps back, and I can't even dance! This is one issue where I just cannot see the conservative side. I just signed on to a new job and talked to the very nice lady in HR who let me know that I needed SS #s for the three kids and my marriage license so that I can sign my family up for health insurance and to make my husband the beneficiary of the free life insurance. Who does it hurt if I couldn't cover them? Taxpayers. Hospitals. The economy. This country was founded on the idea that all people were created equel. Too bad America has rarely lived up to the ideal. For example, I don't have to agree with where my neighbor goes to church, how many guns he owns or how he votes. I do however have to agree that my neighbor has the right in this country to choose these things for himself! The supreme court says so, and than made sure to write it down! Sorry about the rant but people should have better things to do than to decide who can and can't get married.

Yeah, civil rights cannot be left to mob rule. We'd still have Jim Crow if it had been put to a vote... Democracy as it gets practiced often seems to be counterproductive (people not only voting against other people's rights, but against their own self-interest...or FOR their own self-interests in a narrow, short-sighted way, which is part of what got California into its present financial mess...)

This is what happens when the rights of a minority are put up in front of the voters. Ignorance, fear, and hatred are now part of the national fabric and the religious right plays it so well.

I believe that an equivalent of the Civil Rights Act for the gay/transgender community is needed. You may not be able to legislate morality, but you can and should legislate equality. I can dream can't I?

I agree. Rated.

In the meantime, how about an end to the whining about the fact that some people find gay marriages creepy. Leave them to Heaven.

Whether a relationship is gay or straight, its participants shouldn't give a damn what other people think about it.

As far as the money goes, last I heard the "No On One" side outspent the other side. Money is an important factor but obviously not the only one.

Personally, I think you would have a low chance of success at the Supreme Court level. As a purely practical matter you would be asking the Court to change the definition of marriage for the entire country after those efforts have failed every time the issue has come up for a popular vote.

The Supreme Court did make some fairly sweeping changes in civil rights for blacks, but those changes were already reasonably popular in many parts of the country. A Supreme Court decision is not a popularity contest, but I don't believe the Court would want to make a decision that is totally out of step with most of the country.

Legally, I think there would also be some barriers, and I think it would be very unlikely that the Court would hold that gays constitute a "suspect class," thus triggering a higher level of judicial scrutiny of whatever law was being challenged.

That said, I think that demographics are ultimately on your side, and that the issue of gay marriage is seen more favorably by the younger generation. It may be two or more decades in the future, but I think you'll eventually see popular opinion swing to your side.

I think the problem is that gay marriage is ultimately not just about marriage per se, but about the elimination of what gay activists call "heteronormativity" -- the idea that heterosexuality is the "default" or normal orientation, and heterosexual relationships the most important to society -- an idea I happen to agree with.

In order to eliminate heteronormativity, you have to sell the "gay" version of gender and sexuality, something that affects countless issues. The only way of doing that effectively is bringing the new thinking into the schools in the name of tolerance and diversity. Thus it's no surprise that there are books such as "Queering Elementary Education," a book that in spite of its "scary" title is primarily about implementing non-heteronormative educational techniques.

The question is how far you want to take that. The counter-heteronormative position is that most everything is normal and good, and nothing is abnormal. Thus, the thinking goes, there's nothing abnormal about being trans-gendered; it's just a different kind of gender, no less normal than what is called "cis-gender." Or, if two men want to have sex in a public restroom there's nothing wrong with that either, and after all, it's their restroom too.

Of course at that point you've pretty much lost the hetero audience, especially the parents. Now I'm not saying that these things would necessarily be taught; I'm saying that you have to decide how much you're going to push the non-heteronormative envelope, and if you say "it's all good," just how inclusive you want to be.

And I think that's a problem for gay activists. The selling point for gay marriage is "we're just like everyone else." But in trying to overcome heteronormativity it becomes clear pretty quickly that they aren't just like everyone else, and a lot of the gay practices and culture involve things that most heteros find very strange. Gay activists see this as bias and bigotry.

But Mishima, what gets to me is that refusing legality, or recognition of non-heteronormativity, doesn't make gay-etc. things *go away* - it 'only' deprives some of the population of rights that the majority have.

The restroom example doesn't fly, IMO - it's the gays' restroom too, but not JUST theirs. But the marriage would be just theirs. We already have the necessary principles in place to keep the Gay Agenda from taking over - if it's private and between/among consenting adults, then it's nobody else's business. The 'Normals' think somehow that 'non-Normal' behavior that doesn't impinge on them still somehow does, in the psychic realm or something...

We have gay marriage here in Canada. NOTHING HAS CHANGED for straight people.

It's a dangerous slope when civil rights are left to a popular vote - it's ridiculous. If this were the case back in the 60's, Blacks, Jews and Asians would also be second class citizens and interracial marriage would still be illegal.
When it comes to civil rights of citizens, there should be NO VOTE. The constitution either protects it's citizens or it doesn't. I'm sick and tired of this "experiment".
Shame on 53% of Maine.

Myriad writes: "We already have the necessary principles in place to keep the Gay Agenda from taking over - if it's private and between/among consenting adults, then it's nobody else's business."

I think in the GLBT community there are different groups, and the interests of those groups are not necessarily the same. First, I think there are the "ordinary" gays and lesbians who simply want to get married, be employed, own property, etc., end of story. They don't really have any "agenda" beyond that.

And then there are the GLBT activists for whom that is only a starting point. They want a world in which "heterosexism" has been overthrown, "gender binary" thinking is gone, and gender and sexuality are seen as "fluid." In such a world virtually everything is "normal" and virtually nothing is "abnormal." In such a world there is nothing preferential about heterosexuality, and nothing preferential about anything having to do with heterosexuality. Monogamy would a matter of personal preference, not morality, and two-person marriage would be no more preferential than group marriage or any other kind of "relationship configuration." All the traditional distinctions about gender and sex would be gone; a genitally-intact man with a full beard who happened to believe that he was a woman would have to be able to use the "ladies" room. All of these follow logically once heteronormativity is gone.

The only way to achieve that kind of change in thinking is to start in the schools. Legalizing gay marriage does have an effect on schools, as documented in this piece from National Public Radio, "Massachusetts Schools Weigh Gay Topics."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3915906

Not surprisingly, one of the more effective ads for Measure 1 used material taken from that program. But at this point the GLBT perspective in Massachusetts schools goes far beyond what is described in this now five year old program.

In one sense that's fine. There's nothing illegal about it. But my point is always that voters need to consider the implications of what they are approving when they vote for gay marriage. If they are informed and choose to vote for gay marriage I really don't have a problem with that. That's what democracy is all about.

"...and a lot of the gay practices and culture involve things that most heteros find very strange. Gay activists see this as bias and bigotry." - mishima666

Such as what, mishima666? (This ought to be good.)

Given the latest results in California and Maine, I think you are right...taking it to a Federal level may be the most efficient way to ensure that all Americans are given equal rights.

So, I may be grasping to find a silver lining, but... congratulations to the 47% of Maine voters who aren't selfish douchebags. That's way more than would be expected if only the gays opposed the issue, isn't it? I feel bad for them that they feel like their votes don't count.

Raving - that's really a good way of looking at things. The vote was close - nearly half the citizenry were in favor of equality. Another vote next year or the year after would probably get it over the halfway point. It's not like it was only 5 or 10 or 15 percent.

Tho, still, rights should not be at the mercy of the mob...