"No fair, how come Canada gets enlightened leadership and all we get is McDonald's?"</>

Cause our gov't is made up of Americans. What did you expect?

The valid comparison is neither group is getting equal treatment before the law. That someone who belongs to a group that has and is fighting for equal treatment under the law would seek to deny equal treatment to someone else is odious.

Straight couple goes to the court house, applies for a marriage license, they get it. Gay couple goes to the court house and applies for a marriage license, they don't get it, specifically because of who they are. That is unequal treatment before the law.

Before I answer your question, I'll ask you, how does listing those other examples invalidate my position?

Now as to the answer:

Why should the gov't define what constitutes a family? I've always been amazed at how small-govt conservatives are willing to let the govt define what makes a family, seems like it would be an offense to most conservatives. But anyway personally I feel any group of consenting adults that wants to call themselves a family should be allowed to do so. When the govt got into the business of issuing marriage licenses they had a responsibility to give them out fairly.

And more to the point to directly refute you:

incest is illegal, there is your basis for discrimination;

polygamy is illegal, there is your basis for discrimination;

underage marriage is illegal, there is your basis for discrimination.

(note I don't necessarily agree with all of those, but those things are true and that is why they are upheld)

Being gay is not illegal. Perhaps had the voters of the state of California voted to making being gay illegal then they'd also have a basis for denying gay people marriage licenses.

Not that there aren't people who don't like women but I don't see the great misogynistic stain revealed.

Lets keep in mind, that for W.Va. Hillary openly justified her electability by relying on voters who would never vote for a black candidate.

There has been ugliness all around, but calm down.

"once we let two same sex people get married, how are we going to stop people from marrying their pets and their household objects? Nobody addresses this important point. Thanks."

I'll address it:

Consent. Pets and blenders can't consent. They can't stand before a civil employee and say, "Yes. I want to marry this person"

Sheesh! That was easy.

"Full equality for EVERYONE? Polygamists too? COOL!"

First not a valid comparison as polygamy is against the law, being gay isn't.

Secondly, why not? Why would you care if 2 guys and 3 girls, or any combination of consenting adults called themselves a family, and had the state recognize it?

Yes but incest, polygamy and underage sex are acts that marriage would condone, despite being against the law. The ban on gay marriage says, because of who you are, you can't marry.

You're right though, I am on shaky ground here. What I really want to say is: So what? Why should I care and why should it bother me if two cousins or 5 people want to get married. Any grouping of consenting American adults should be able to call themselves a family and have it recognized by the govt as long as the govt is in the family recognizing business. Naturally the underage is covered since they are not consenting adults, but if they and their parents consent AND they are of legal age to have sex (it varies state to state) I don't care. And the key thing with the anti-gay marriage movement is why they care. I understand they have religious objections, but that should just apply to getting into heaven. It shouldn't apply to the machinery of state. What if over the years the demographic changes and judeo-christian values are not the majority? Will they support new govt definitions of family? Hell no.

Here's the problem with the state deciding the terms of the social contract. What if the state decides slavery is ok?

I know I can't state this as a fact, but really I think its clear this is based on "I don't like gay people" OR "The imaginary old man in the sky tells me being gay is wrong".

Also I can't cite precedent but does it mean that black men can't be discriminated against because as men, they are part of the male paternalistic majority?

"Now all we need is a president who won't blow the chance."

I saw what you did there! Very funny!

Seriously, haven't we all seen enough Daily Shows to know this kind of cheap humor used to 'spice' up serious news is passe?

Given what parents consider ok for their children this issue hardly warrants notice.

Consider this case which is NOT considered strange: 2 working adults decide to have a child. They decide this knowing in advance that the child will be put in the care of a hired stranger almost from birth so both parents can go back to work.

Given that the above case is not considered criminally negligent, I don't see why anything else should bother us in the realm of parenting or child care.

"what i would like to see is a study on what types of parents buy these sorts of clothes and toys for their children."

Boomer parents who're afraid of being thought of as unhip (here's the sad part) in the eyes of their children.

Or parents who've decided for their own fulfillment to keep working (this is limited to those that CHOSE to keep working, and not out of need. Hats off to the ones who worked out of need) and to hire a stranger to raise their children and consequently attempt to over-compensate for their lack of attention to their children by being too permissive because subconsciously they feel their absence from their children's lives deprives them of the moral authority to parent effectively (and they're right).