So how did this guy get Re-elected?

[cabville]

The behavior of the state can be regulating the behavior of individuals, but it's not in this case.

Homosexuals are not getting arrested or punished for "getting married." The state is just not sanctioning gay marriage.

So it is penalizing them in a way that is different from imprisoning them - by costing them money, preventing them from having financial and medical benefits, as well as barring them from legal access to their deceased spouse.  Yes, the State is penalizing the behaviour of individuals, a behaviour that is no one else's business.  Unequal treatment before the law violates individual rights.  All to satisfy the sick interfering desires of you christian bigots.

You are absolutely wrong as usual.  Marriage is a religious ritual and in essence a covenant between a man, a woman, and God.  It's not a bond between two people of the same gender or three or more people of different genders.  It's a bond between one man and woman.  Its religious and cultural history and tradition literally dates back eons.  And it's not the place for couple of gay activists to suddenly redefine it just because they don't like the traditional definition.  They don't have the right to do it any more than polygamists have the right to decide that more than two people can get married.  Marriage is what it is.  If you don't like it, come up with your own ritual.

[cabville]

We just went through the difference between the state doing something and not doing something, moron. That's a pretty important distinction, and since you quit debating that point I'll assume you're either unable to grasp it or just BSing.

I went to bed.  But apparently just missed you falling to the level of ad hominem attack.  Darn.

Your distinction is completely unimportant.  In fact it is false.  The State is 'doing something' by arbitrarily enforcing a prejudicial type of 'marriage', in order to please the majority - hate-frenzied religious like yourself - and penalize the minority - nice gay people.

The state is " arbitrarily in forcing a prejudicial type of marriage "? You don't get it.  Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman, period! It is just as arbitrary as the girl Scouts only allowing girls in.  If boys are allowed then it's not really the girl Scouts is it? You may think it's arbitrary and that's fine, the You didn't create the ritual and it's not yours to change. 

I may decide tomorrow that I want to marry Tina and Nancy, but I can't.  Should I start crying and whining about how long been discriminated against it held the hate frenzied religious people are penalizing me? This is typical of liberals.  When they don't get their way, they start crying like two year olds.  Just because you don't like it doesn't make it discrimination.

[cabville]

So they want the state to do something, and not doing it is not interfering.

No, they want the state to stop doing something - which is interfereing with them by descrimination.  It is similar to the laws against people of different races marrying.

Anyway, perhaps a better question - to get past your pointless semantic nonsense, would be to ask - why do you think they should not get married?  That you think there should be any other consideration than the fact that they wish it reveals that you are a hateful bigot.  Its none of your business Philip.

No, it's nothing like interracial marriage.  This is because interracial marriage occurs between. . . .  Care to take a guess. . . . .  A man and a woman.  That is the only standard marriage is held to.

Read this quote of yours very carefully. . . .

"That you think there should be any other consideration than the fact that they wish it reveals that you are a hateful bigot. "

this is fascinating.  I don't think that I should be allowed to marry Nancy and Tina, does that make me a hateful bigot against myself? What if I want to join the NAACP? I'm white .  How about the girl Scouts? I am a man, how about the National Organization for Women?

your logic is absurd.  You have decided that you and people like you have the right to redefine anything you don't like.  You don't.  You are free to come up with your own ritual just like somebody did eons ago when marriage was invented and defining it any way you want.

[cabville]

Your distinction is completely unimportant.  In fact it is false.  The State is 'doing something' by arbitrarily enforcing a prejudicial type of 'marriage', in order to please the majority - hate-frenzied religious like yourself - and penalize the minority - nice gay people.

No, it is not doing something. That is a fact.

As for ad hominem attacks, either quit accusing people of being 'sick bigots,' or shut up.

Yes, the government is defining marriage as something that fits a specific exclusionary religious population.  The government is discriminating, just as it did when it allowed people of the same race to marry, but not people of different races.

I don't consider 'sick bigot', when applied to your whole ilk - kith, kin, regional and religious identity - to be ad hominem.  Nothing personal against you Philip, all you Southern redneck religious nuts are sick bigots.

You left out a rather important fact.  Marriage is a religious ritual.  Enforcing the terms of that bond is hardly arbitrary.  Arbitrary is suddenly deciding they don't like the terms of the deal and trying to change it to suit your own personal desires while telling everybody who disagrees with you that they are bigots and hate frenzied.  Or perhaps you want to redefine the word arbitrary also?