"You know, I'm inclined to agree with you, that if everyone is consenting who gives a damn. The only issue I can see with that is that "marriage is defined as between one man and one woman according to the bible", so we still need to find a way to separate the religious from the legal."

Well the religious definition vs. the legal definition of marriage IS what the whole argument is about.

"I agree entirely. Why are we providing a legal incentive for people to get married at all? Why are we specifying this legal incentive for groups of two and two alone? Why specify this incentive only for straight couples?"

Well if you take away incentives, then everyone is treated equally and no one would be irritated if someone else married in the church or not, as there would be no incentives for them to do so other than religious in nature...which is their right to do under the Constitution.

Mike Sulzer,

"Um, the majority deprive a minority of the right to vote? Nope, could not happen in a million years. Nice set up TOM."

Yep...I figured someone would miss my point. First of all, the protections in the Constitution are SPECIFICALLY spelled out, so no activism would be required. Next, such a vote could never come to pass as it would be challenged BEFORE it got on the ballot.

My point was, it is not a logical argument because NO activism would be required here. Geez, some people.

Mona,

"It always so very entertaining to see what the RWAs consider to constitute "far-left" these days. Never before knew I was a far-leftist!"

Self-realization is a WONDERFUL thing.

JoeMommaSan,

"I was living in San Francisco in November of 1978, when Proposition W won approval by a margin of 63.7%. Proposition W (the W stood for "weed") read: "Declaration of Policy: We, the people of San Francisco, demand that the District Attorney, along with the Chief of Police, cease the arrest and prosecution of individuals involved in the cultivation, transfer, or possession of marijuana."

Despite the proposition being approved by an overwhelming percentage of voters, the authorities simply stated that they were not bound to follow it, state law took precedent, yadda, yadda."

Quite possibly because it was a LOCAL law, not a federal or even a state law. Further, as has been stated here many times, state law superceeds local law and federal law superceeds state law. Now if it had been a federal law based on a vote of ALL the people of the US, THEN you may have a leg to stand on with this argument.

Interspecies matrimony? Children marrying adults? COME ON!

Now THAT said, there IS a possibility of bygamy or even polygamy entering the arena here. After all, they would ALL be consenting adults. Now if two consenting adults can enter into a marriage, why not three or more, if they're all consenting? This really IS an issue as I can see someone saying "why discriminate against us JUST because we are two men and a woman or two women and a man?"

The question which must be asked is, how far are we willing to go to allow people to marry.

My solution would be for the government (federal, state, and local) to get out of legislating marriage. How do they do this? Why by taxing everyone the same. Further, have everyone (religiously married and not) sign documentation allowing whomever they designate to take care of their needs. This way, NO ONE is given special treatment.

T0M SAWYER,

"...think about a referendum in CA passed by a majority (the Democrats) that stripped them of their right to vote. Would the courts be "activist" and subject to condemnation if they over turned that referendum?"

Illogical argument, Tom. This would simply be stopped at the Federal level as begin against the US Constitution as a DIRECT violation of multiple amendments. Now, no ruling has yet been made by a US Supreme Court to determine if same-sex marriage is constitutional per any amendment as yet.

Your example is CLEARLY a violation of said amendments and would be over turned with no activism require by ANYONE's standards.

"Based on my understanding, I'm not convinced that it's the "tyranny of the majority" that you should be most concerned about, but the "tyranny of the ignorant".

I wasn't aware that there is a difference.."

Sorry but that's what you have to deal with in a Democracy. A government Of The People, By The People, and For The People.

Majority (ALMOST) always rules.

"Nope, even state constitutions are subordinate to the federal constitution. Therefore, if the U.S. Supreme Court were to decide that the Fourteenth Amendment encompasses same-sex marriage, all state laws discriminating on that basis would be invalidated, including state constitutions."

Absolutely correct...ASSUMING the US Supreme Court were to decide the Fourteenth Amendment does encompass same-sex marriage. However, we don't KNOW they would do this. Further, this would be a case that would set a precedence for the entire US which would make same-sex marriage legal. Not sure the US Supreme Court is ready to do that. Besides, it would be stretching the 14th Amendment a bit.

Finally, if the US Supreme Court DID do this, I wonder what the backlash would be? A possibility of a US Constitution Amendment movement???

I refer you here for life in Iraq:

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

If you want to know what's really happening there, check with someone who's been there for some time.