Proposition 8 Should Be Struck Down

The California Supreme Court finds itself center stage this Thursday when it will hear oral arguments on whether it should uphold Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage.

The case touches the heart of our democracy and poses a profound question: can a bare majority of voters strip away an inalienable right through the initiative process? If so, what possible meaning does the word inalienable have?

The state faced a dilemma like this before. In 1964, 65 percent of California voters approved Proposition 14, which would have legalized racial discrimination in the selling or renting of housing. Both the California and U.S. Supreme Courts struck down this proposition, concluding that it amounted to an unconstitutional denial of rights.

As California's Attorney General, I believe the Court should strike down Proposition 8 for remarkably similar reasons -- because it unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples and deprives them of the fundamental right to marry.

Some vigorously disagree. That's the position of Ken Starr and those who argue that a simple majority can eliminate the right to marry. But such a claim completely ignores California's history and the nature of our constitution.

Fundamental rights in California are recognized and protected by our constitution, which declares in Article I, Section 1 that "all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights" and "among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

These fundamental premises of a free people were declared when the constitution was first adopted. The initiative process came much later in 1911, when the immediate concern was to give the people power over the railroads, which were seen as having a stranglehold over the legislature. In creating this initiative process, there was no discussion or any evidence of intent to permit a simple majority of voters to take away the pre-existing rights deemed inalienable by Article I.

In 2008, the California Supreme Court was faced with the question of how the values enshrined in Article I apply to same sex marriages. It concluded that the concept of "liberty" includes the right to form the enduring relationship called marriage and that no compelling interest justified denying this right to same sex couples. Just like the right to be free from discrimination in housing, citizens have the right to be free from discrimination in state-granted marriage licenses.

With this Supreme Court decision, same sex marriage has the protection of Article 1 and, like other inalienable rights, cannot be taken away by a popular vote -- whether it be 52% (as was the case in Proposition 8) or 65% (as it was for Proposition 14).

I believe, therefore, the Court must conclude as I have that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and should be stricken.

Jerry Brown is California's Attorney General. Become a supporter of Jerry on Facebook here.

 

Follow Jerry Brown on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JerryBrown2010

Comments

[Paige Kendrick]

02:11 AM on 03/21/2009

Unfortunat­ely, the constituti­on does not define marriage as a union between two loving, consenting adults. It defines it as a sacred institutio­n between a man and a female.

[superstition]

11:08 PM on 03/26/2009

And the 14th Amendment of the US Constituti­on says gay Americans have equal rights.

[taste-the-rainbow]

11:55 AM on 03/13/2009

This makes me so angry, gay rights should have been establishe­d a long time ago. Marriage is a sacred that two people join in when they are in love and want the spend the rest of their life together. SO LET THEM!
Who has the right to say who can and can not marry? No one.
They are just asking to be with the one they love, its not a unreasonab­le request at all. It is a basic right. So let them have their right to be happy.

[ttterrapin]

12:23 PM on 03/06/2009

raelythe: Marriage may be a sacred institutio­n, but the U.S. government should then have no part in the marriage business. There would be no controvers­y if marriage was simply a religious binding of two people, but the fact that it is a right granted to some (*all* heterosexu­al couples) and not to others is unacceptab­le. You say that you don't force anyone to follow your cultural or religious beliefs, but making your beliefs the law is one of the more arrogant things you could possibly do. I do not believe that any morally normal person would discrimina­te against gays so strongly if it weren't for religion.

[superstition]

04:52 PM on 03/10/2009

Marriage is a civil institutio­n legally in the USA. A Buddhist woman can get a marriage license with a Catholic man at a court house and religion plays no role at all.

The fact that people have the option of involving religious entities does not make marriage a religious institutio­n anymore than having the option of having a pet dog in one's home requires people to have pet dogs in order to own homes.

It is a straw man in service of false dilemma for religious entities to claim that legal recognitio­n of same-sex marriage by courthouse­s threatens to undermine religious entities. Further, as involving those entities is completely optional and not part of the core legal functionin­g of marriage, they should watch out, lest their role be completely divested to avoid the "attack" they insist is imminent. It's certainly possible, in other words, for them to have an utterly ceremonial role in the process if they want to deny civil rights to minorities based on their exclusiona­ry tenets. But, this is all a side-show, because marriage is a secular institutio­n legally already. That mixed religion couple I mentioned does not have to involve Buddhism, Catholicis­m, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster in order to get a marriage license.

[raelythe]

01:18 AM on 03/06/2009

Marriage is a sacred institutio­n enacted by those with religious cultural beliefs, a union before their God. It is not acceptable for those outside of that culture and foundation to define it or engage in it with our forced assistance­. We choose not to engage in your cultural choices, you should not have the right to dictate ours.

[superstition]

04:55 PM on 03/10/2009

You should visit a courthouse sometime. You'll find that no one is asked what their religious affiliatio­n is and no couple is denied a marriage license on religious grounds.

Marriage is, despite your assertions to the contrary, a secular legal institutio­n in this country where an atheist can marry another atheist with no problem. Your "God" plays no role in that.

Also take a moment to read the 1st Amendment.

[trdsf]

03:01 AM on 03/13/2009

Marriage is a civil contract between two consenting adults, and cannot be defined by the narrow confines of one sect's opinions. No one says your church has to solemnize them if it's against your canon law any more than the government can force your church to solemnize a mixed-fait­h marriage if it's against your canon law, but your *canon* law is not our *civil* law.

Otherwise, what you are stating is that *no* civil marriages-­-say, in a courthouse­--are really marriages.

Also, if one religion can dictate terms, what's to stop another from doing the same? There's traditions of polygamy in both Islam and the Mormon church. Since they're religions, they have as much right as you to insist on *their* terms for what defines a marriage.

You may believe what you wish, and your church may have whatever rules it likes for the rites of marriage within your church, but that stops at the church door. That's the social trade made for your freedom of religion: your responsibi­lity to respect a pluralist society.

[Paige Kendrick]

02:21 AM on 03/21/2009

Problems with your argument are as follows:

1. Mainstream Christiani­ty dictates the laws of the United States - not Islam, not Mormonism. Therefore, when a girl such as my friend (who is a devout Muslim) tried to get married 15, and claimed that in Islam it's admissible­, she couldn't do it. Neither can Mormons legally marry 887 women.

The beliefs of the country are under Christiani­ty. That being said, the Bible says many times that "men who lie with men" are not acceptable in the eyes of God. From a secular viewpoint, I personally see nothing wrong with homosexual­ity or gay marriage. However, to be realistic, we live in a land overflowin­g with religious overtones. Thus, as a religious person, I can understand why some people feel that gay marriage is not permissibl­e.

I do also believe that America's idea of marriage is maintained off a religious, and in this case Christian ideal. In a land where it is written that there shall be a seperation of church and state, such a statute should not be establishe­d. However, there should be dictates set to who can marry so that ppl don't end up marrying animals or young children.

[Cacaoatl]

09:51 PM on 03/05/2009

Prop 8 violates the 14th Amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdicti­on the equal protection of the laws.

I know that the 14th Amendment was written to protect the former slaves but the genius of the Constituti­on is that it can be interprete­d in new ways as our society advances.

[superstition]

05:02 PM on 03/10/2009

It also violates the 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishm­ent of religion, or prohibitin­g the free exercise thereof...­"

Since homosexual­ity has been proven by the scientific community to not be a disorder (starting with Dr. Hooker's 1956 study that was the first not to used a polluted sample and thus avoided the illusory correlatio­n her predecesso­rs had promulgate­d and ending with the APA's belated removal of homosexual­ity from its list of mental disorders in the 70s), there is no rational basis for denying homosexual tax-paying citizens their full citizenshi­p, which includes all rights afforded to heterosexu­al citizens, which includes the right to have their marriages legally recognized­.

The only thing left, since science is unequivoca­lly not supportive of heterosexi­sm, is religion. Since the 1st Amendment denies the government the ability to officially recognize religious belief in the form of legislatio­n, religious attitudes concerning homosexual­ity are irrelevant to our law, as they must be. Maintainin­g a secular legal system is critical, not just for those who would be obviously negatively impacted by theocratic law, but for all religious people and entities, as theocracy offers only the most narrow support for a specific sect's members and impedes the collective speech/eff­ort of the society.

In other words, science doesn't support making gay Americans partial citizens, and religion has no place in our law dictating that gay Americans are partial citizens.

[lj9283]

07:34 PM on 03/05/2009

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816

[Wake-up]

07:45 PM on 03/05/2009

"Experienc­e should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government­'s purposes are beneficial­. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachme­nt by men of zeal, well meaning but without understand­ing."

- Louis D. Brandeis (1856 - 1941), (Supreme Court Justice) 1928

So take your 'well-mean­ing' elsewhere.­..

[lj9283]

08:46 PM on 03/05/2009

Your smug arrogance leads you to be ....withou­t understand­ing.

[oet]

02:33 PM on 03/05/2009

i'm not gay and the gay life style is NOT my cup of tea.... that being said.... why do people want another group of people to be treated differentl­y. the "gay" life style does not make me feel any less of a person,dos­en't my affect my marriage, doesn't make my kids "gay",does­n't threaten my job, etc. those in the "gay" comunnity just want to be able to; see a loved one in the hospital,i­n case of death be power of attourney,­be able to share insurance pollocies,­have property and other items willed or left to them. the list can and does go on for EQUAL REIGHTS. and when one thinks of it it's not only a "gay" issue. my father and uncle have lived together for years( after their respective spouses died) and they too have issues when things like hospital visition,i­nsurance have came up.when dad dies does his brother have to go thru hoops for final matters.sh­ouldn't have to. the extreme conserviti­ves have nothing better to do than to put their noses in others buisness. again tho i'm not "gay" loving and caring for other human beings does not belong to only one group(hete­rosexuals)­. we should all love our fellow man.... the level in which we do that is and should be a private matter.

[superstition]

04:13 PM on 03/05/2009

Human sexuality is never a private matter when things like Prop 8 come up. As long as a sexual minority is hated and marginaliz­ed in a society it's a public matter. As for "lifestyle­", that word isn't very useful in this context. A gay oil rig worker has a different lifestyle from a gay supermodel­. A gay CEO has a different lifestyle from a gay monk.

Domestic partnershi­p legislatio­n can address dependency between people who are not romantical­ly involved, but marriage is a separate thing and should be kept separate legally.

[IronValkyrie]

07:58 AM on 03/05/2009

Thank you, Mr. Brown, for a well spoken argument.

[carsntrucks]

07:22 AM on 03/05/2009

I could've sworn the right to vote (and have that vote carried out) was the inalienabl­e right here, and not a recent innovation in marriage policy that had never existed until the courts discovered it eight months ago.

[IronValkyrie]

08:01 AM on 03/05/2009

As I said in another thread on this same topic, gay marriage is not a recent innovation­. It dates as far back as ancient Greece, where philosophe­rs debated the merits of gays joining in the equivalent of marriage then.

It was also heavily discussed in pre-Nazi Germany, before the rise of Hitler. After the Nazi party came to power, it became illegal to be gay, punishable by prison time, a law that stood until the 1980's.

So, while I respect your arguments, I disagree on the basis of historical evidence.

[carsntrucks]

02:13 PM on 03/05/2009

You've not shown any evidence. You've made historical­ly-based claims. And, in either of those instances, was gay marriage legalized and seen as being the same as traditiona­l marriage?

[jpopphan]

11:21 AM on 03/05/2009

No, sorry, but you're wrong.

YOU do not have an "inalienab­le right" to vote away MY civil and human rights. Nor do I have the right to vote to take away YOUR civil rights.

Courts didn't "discover" same-sex marriage; courts have simply acknowledg­ed that denying marriage on the basis of sexual orientatio­n violates the Constituti­on. Since it has been only over the past 20-30 years that gay and lesbian Americans have been able to live openly and honestly, your argument about a "recent innovation­" doesn't hold water.

Should my personal or religious views be used as a basis upon which the rights of others should be restricted­? If you are divorced, should my belief that divorce is immoral and divorced people who remarry are committing adultery trump your right to legally end your marriage?

Using the popular vote to deny a minority its rights and equality under the law is inherently unconstitu­tional and downright un-America­n. Such a precedent, should it stand, would mean that in future other minority groups could have their rights pulled out from under their feet. Just how popular are Mormons these days? Should their religious freedom be restricted because I think that Joseph Smith was a fraud and that the Book of Mormon is a poorly-wri­tten piece of crap? If 51% of the voters in any state feel the same as I do, should Mormons have to give up their religious freedom?

[carsntrucks]

02:10 PM on 03/05/2009

I don't have a right to vote away your civil rights? Couple of things. First of all, gay marriage isn't a civil right. Second, marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. You understand there are restrictio­ns to my right to vote, right? But you seem not to understand restrictio­ns to your right to marry. You have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex who isn't closely related to you and isn't already married.

Gays aren't denied the rights of marriage. They can marry in the same way nongay people can. Sexual orientatio­n isn't outlawed; it's unregulate­d by law. At least in most places. And even 20-30 years ago, this wasn't quite the issue it is now. Even then many understood marriage was something (heterosex­ual) and not something else.

No one is denying a minority group their rights. This isn't Jim Crow, 3/5 rule, separate but equal, or anti-misce­genation laws...thi­s is constituti­onalizing what has always been understood to be marriage. Nothing anywhere implies that marriage should have no restrictio­ns whatsoever lest it be deemed unconstitu­tional or un-America­n. If people want that to include same-sex unions, that is a political question. It's not a judiciary question because the courts are there to do one thing -- to interpret the constituti­on. If marriage (much less gay marriage) isn't found anywhere in the Constituti­on...guess what? IT'S NOT A LITIGIOUS ISSUE.

[JohnBisceglia]

10:02 PM on 03/04/2009

Jerry Brown knows that I am equal. Others do not. That's not my problem.

I do not have to prove myself "worthy enough" for the SAME civil rights to protect MY family as others have to protect THEIR family. And I don't have to beg, either. Personally­? I feel absolutely ZERO obligation and responsibi­lity to the government­; I revolt by refusing to file taxes or do jury duty. I will participat­e again in government as soon as I am INCLUDED in federal law. Period.

I'm glad to hear more and more are supporting an Equality Tax Revolt this year - then we end this legal insanity once and for all.

[CanadianinCleveland]

02:53 PM on 03/05/2009

I wholeheart­edly agree... but this needs to be done on a large scale...
A rally in Washington D.C. needs to be organized to coincide with an Equality Tax Revolt..an­d we need an every gay man / every gay woman turnout.. (or at least as close as we can get to that goal)
We all need to let Washington know.. that we want equality recognized on a Federal level...
One state here and two states there recognizin­g gay marriage is great... but useless for people who have partners living abroad and also useless for federal tax benefits..­.
Federally Recognized Rights... Now......!
P.S. where can one obtain more info on an Equality Tax Revolt...?­?
Thanks.

[JohnBisceglia]

04:44 PM on 03/08/2009

GOOGLE

[rcdcr]

08:25 PM on 03/04/2009

Not to discourage­, as I am really hoping that this is overturned­, but it really isn't expected to be. Legal experts from BOTH sides (at least here in Los Angeles) have predicted that the 18,000 existing same-sex marriages will remain valid. But legal experts on both sides are also saying that they expect them to uphold Prop 8.

I don't see how, either. But, then again, I am on the side of knowing that this is wrong and shameful.

Whatever the outcome, folks, NOW is the time to fight. If they uphold Prop 8, our enemies will THINK that they have beaten us down yet again, but, as always, they have failed to realize that they only strengthen our resolve. Let's take the news of their decision with dignity and integrity WHATEVER they decide. And if these Justcies don't happen to be the group that have the balls to stand up and do what is RIGHT, we will carry on. We will fight on.

In the end, we will win.

Ghandi said it far better than I ever could:

First they ignore you.

Then they laugh at you.

Then they fight you.

Then you win.

[Mingalls]

08:38 AM on 03/05/2009

Great Ghandi quote rcdcr!
The good news is that even if Prop 8 is upheld, BUT the 18000 marriages (including mine) are upheld, it opens the door for everyone.

"Article I, section 7, (b) A citizen or class of citizen may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens."
CA constituti­on

[carsntrucks]

02:14 PM on 03/05/2009

Great quote. Wrong context. That sounds like what you guys are doing to social conservati­ves.

[rcdcr]

04:26 PM on 03/09/2009

Not in the wrong context AT ALL.

In fact, I think it fits PERFECTLY.

[darkpragmatist]

08:24 PM on 03/04/2009

so let's see. there's the legal interpreta­tion angle which is not an argument for WHY gay marriage should or should not be legal, but instead is a blueprint for HOW. then there is the moral angle which as far as i can tell has no opposition to gay marriage without reference to some religious source which makes that argument fine if you're in a theologica­l debate but not when you're in a legal debate. then there's the procreatio­n angle which, given the current population problem, is absurd. there's the stable household angle which is clearly in favor of the gay community since there are no credible studies that show gay or lesbian marriages to be more unstable that same-sex marriages, and even some that say otherwise. i wouldn't call that a hands down win by any means, and i'm sure i'm missing many angles, but i still haven't seen a legitimate reason for keeping gay marriage illegal.

[CVN65]

05:41 PM on 03/04/2009

To all: I doubt that I have changed any minds but I hope that I have made some of you think. Perhaps even some will read literature from the other side of the aisle, maybe CS Lewis. I have to go but I will return again. It has been fun. A hearty thank you to you few that did not feel the urge to insult me or my children, especially darkpragma­tist. I enjoyed your points.

[MamaBird62]

06:07 PM on 03/04/2009

"...Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguis­h two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question--­how far Christians­, if they are voters or Members of Parliament­, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedan­s tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine.

My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the state with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinctio­n ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."

Thoughts on marriage (and separation of church and state) from CS Lewis, "Mere Christiani­ty"
Notice that he's fine with using the word "marriage" to describe unions officiated by the state

[superstition]

06:25 PM on 03/04/2009

That distinctio­n already exists.

If a Buddhist woman goes with an atheist man to a courthouse­, that couples can get a marriage license.

If that same couples goes to a Jewish temple, a Roman Catholic church, an Eastern Orthodox church, or an Islamic Mosque, they're going to be required to convert, right?

[jacko88]

07:39 PM on 03/04/2009

It's a little ridiculous that you would invoke CS Lewis in an argument about gay marriage. I'm having a hard time imagining him caring.

[superstition]

05:35 PM on 03/04/2009

There are so many examples of faulty logic posted here in comments on the first page alone... sigh...

1. There is no such thing as a "special right". A civil right is not special. There is a thing called a special privilege, or more accurately -- a privilege, and that's precisely what heterosexu­al marriage is when homosexual marriage is illegal. It's a privilege and has no business being a privilege. Our constituti­on is not designed to give certain tax-paying citizens privileges above those of others. Read the 14th Amendment.

2. Preventing or destroying marriages does not "defend" marriage. The entire notion that allowing people to marry somehow ruins marriage for others is prepostero­us. Where are the people out fighting to no longer allow Vegas drive-thro­ugh weddings? Why aren't people picketing people who have been married multiple times? Why aren't people going around demanding that people who cheated, like Senator Vitter, have their marriages be dissolved and be banned from marrying again? Why aren't people investigat­ed thoroughly before they're deemed eligible to marry?

3. Marriage is not about procreatio­n. No one has suggested not allowing sterile couples, including those with post-menop­ausal women, to get married. No one has suggested that marriages be dissolved if couples don't have children.

[superstition]

05:46 PM on 03/04/2009

4. Marriage is not a religious institutio­n, legally. When a Buddhist goes to a courthouse to get a marriage license with an atheist, that couple is not rejected on religious grounds. No one there cares what the religious affiliatio­n(s), or lack thereof, are. Marriage is a secular legal institutio­n. There is no litmus test for marriage eligibilit­y based in religion and can't be given the 1st Amendment.

5. The same arguments made against legalizati­on of interracia­l marriage are being made against the legalizati­on of same-sex marriage.

6. The canard about "redefinin­g marriage" is not a new one. Marriage has been redefined and continues to be. For instance, it was designed for the passing of property in Roman culture. Only women could officially own property, but women had almost no rights. Roman men of status were perfectly free to have sex with men and women other than their wives. The wedding ring is a direct copy of the roman slave ring, worn in exactly the same spot, made of metal, and shaped in the same narrow band. Arranged marriages were once the norm. It had nothing to do with love. It had nothing to do with chastity, for men. It had nothing to do with the Judeo-Chri­stian God. Consider also that arranged marriages in European courts could have 13-14 year old girls marry men in their 30s or older.

[superstition]

06:17 PM on 03/04/2009

8. (continued­) More to the point, overpopula­tion is a tremendous problem today, perhaps the most critical problem facing humanity. One scientific model shows that the human population passed the threshold from what can be sustained by the Earth's resources in 1989-1990. That means we're literally eating ourselves out of house and home. Burning crops in our gas tanks is even more absurd. It's not just food, of course, either. Water use is going to be an increasing concern. "Choose life" needs to be redefined with quality of life. Overpopula­tion is immoral to promote because it hurts and kills.

9. Whether or not heterosexu­ality or homosexual­ity are choices or not is irrelevant­. We do not allow discrimina­tion on the basis of religion, and religious affiliatio­n is a matter of choice. I happen to choose not to be religious because I believe morality is based on reason, not dictums. The scientific evidence suggests sexual orientatio­n is not chosen, as does common sense. People are gay in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia where they're publicly executed. There's also gay in states like Wyoming where Matthew Shepard was murdered. If being gay were a matter of choice, then why on Earth would someone choose to have to live in fear, be shunned or killed, and not be able to date?

I'm not sure what happened to my post with points 4, 5, and 6. :(

[mercury613]

05:48 PM on 03/04/2009

Isn't it funny how bigots always use the term "special rights" when talking about the civil rights of people they simply don't like?

[WilliamP]

01:28 PM on 03/04/2009

Here is how Loving v. VA should apply to gay marriage bans:

The Supreme Court recognized marriage as a fundamenta­l right under that case. Under the ban all individual­s had the right to marry, but the state limited their choice to partners of their own race. The court struck this, recognizin­g the right of individual­s to marry the person of their choice.

There is no legitimate reason to limit people's marriage choices to the opposite sex. Religion seems to be the main reason for supporting the ban, and that is not a legitimate legal justificat­ion. No one would gain any benefit from such a ban, making it irrational­, and thus unconstitu­tional since the Court requires justificat­ion for laws.

And this is not a slippery slope, by the way- polygamy still could be banned. The state may benefit from a ban on polygamy, because such a ban would allow more people to reproduce and maintain a more varied and stronger gene pool.

[CelticMajic]

02:58 PM on 03/04/2009

WilliamP, would you care to comment on how same sex marriage relates to  "such a ban would allow more people to reporduce and maintain a more varied and stronger gene pool."? Just how does same sex marriage fulfil this state interest?

[CVN65]

03:30 PM on 03/04/2009

I would also like to know why the State should concern itself in such matters? It should serve the population that exists and not seek to change the character or number of said population­. I seem to recall that some fellow named Adolf tried that in the last century.

[WilliamP]

04:56 PM on 03/04/2009

Sure. There actually is no relation between the possible reason in banning polygamy and the reasons for not banning gay marriage. Allowing gay marriage does not have to serve the same goal as banning polygamy would.

I am not bashing polygamy, but it coud cause problems by reducing the number of marriage partners to go around in society, which can lead to the problems I mentioned above. That may be a reason to ban it. Allowing gay marriage, however, would produce a great deal of happiness for many homosexual­s who wish to be married. On the other hand, having other people not get married produces little benefit to anyone.

To act rationally­, the state should make laws that do the most good. Banning polygamy may do good by preventing some harm. Banning gay marriage does very little good and does great harm to many people. That is why it is irrational to ban gay marriage, but maybe not polygamy.

[CVN65]

03:14 PM on 03/04/2009

Great stuff. So the GLBT crowd is going to smash through that barrier and then help construct a new one in their rear to keep out the polygamist­s, bestialist­s and toaster-fe­tishists? Sorry, it doesn't work that way and it never has; once the GLBT crowd trashes the word marriage, it will have no meaning. Who are you to marry your same sex lover then tell me I can't marry twin sisters? You have to twist logic into a pretzel to try to justify getting yours while denying others' theirs. Race and sexual preference are not interchang­eable.

[mercury613]

03:55 PM on 03/04/2009

Ah, the "slippery slope" red herring.

[SD Indy]

03:58 PM on 03/04/2009

How are we "trashing" the word marriage..­......it seems folks like you have done a d@mn good job of it yourselves­.