Some comfort for gay rights supporters...

[Lunar]

People aren't voting "against human rights", they are voting not to change the definition of marriage.   Human rights aren't on the ballot, a word in the dictionary is.

Actually they are voting to change it since the status quo was gay marriage.

[Lunar]

People aren't voting "against human rights", they are voting not to change the definition of marriage.   Human rights aren't on the ballot, a word in the dictionary is.

Actually they are voting to change it since the status quo was gay marriage.

No, they are simply restoring the status quo.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

[Lunar]

People aren't voting "against human rights", they are voting not to change the definition of marriage.   Human rights aren't on the ballot, a word in the dictionary is.

Actually they are voting to change it since the status quo was gay marriage.

No, they are simply restoring the status quo.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Yes it does, considering the brevity of the period in which said marriages were legal.

Do you know what status quo means?

[Lunar]

true dat, democracy is a means to an end, not the end in and of itself

[Lunar]

Bottom line, how do people vote against human rights? It's just incomprehensible to me.

Because they do not see it as a right.

Getting allowed to marry the one you love isn't a right?

I don't really see it as a right as I see it as a largely religious institution.  Why the government is involved there, I don't really know.  Conservatives who believe in the value of the family unit should be the ones out there trying to push this gay marriage thing on people to promote stability, monogamy, etc etc for the children in these families.  When I hear a gay friend talk about wanting to marry and start a family, that's not even an inclination I can identify with, but if social conservatives weren't so wedded to homophobia, they should be promoting gay marriage while us secularists should be out there trying to destroy heterosexual marriage and replacing everything government-imbued with civil unions.  What a strange world we live in, huh?

However, if you want to talk about this issue in language of institutional discrimination and human dignity, I think you  might get somewhere.

The whole "rights" talk has been getting over-saturated for at least a decade, to the point that we have constantly conflicting rights claims...right to life vs. right to choice?  rights rahts rights rahts

[Lunar]

There are a lot of benefits or rights or what have you that are derived from "marriage". I don't care what you want to call it, but those "rights" must be given equally.

Are you talking about the emotional reaction to the term "marriage" or the civil-union style benefits?  The latter I would approach to calling rights, especially things like hospital visits and inheritance, which can make one cry when one reads some of the stories gay couples have had to suffer through.

These people who vote against gay marriage probably do see marriage as a right,

Well, they'd certainly probably want to topple the US government if Obama passed an ordinance saying only homo's will get married now and heteros will just have to have civil unions, hahaha.  I'd almost support that just for shits and giggles.

[Lunar]

There should be a referendum in every state next year. That way, we'll find out that only Rhode Island supports gay marriage.

Maine probably has a more pro-gay marriage electorate than Rhode Island.

My guess is that only Vermont and maybe Hawaii (?) would win gay marriage referendums in 2010...but it's a rapidly shifting electorate.  California will likely overturn Prop 8 in 2012.  The rest will follow.

The anti-marriage side will finds it arguments losing more and more oxygen as they are forced to argue how terrible the status quo is...with or without gay marriage, kids are still going to ask about homosexuality, and same-sex marriages existing in other states will show that civilization is not going to be doomed.