Can you explain this in more detail? I’m not sure what you mean or how you would measure this.

If there is a church that will join 2 people of the same sex in a union under a god of their belief they should be married.

I do not agree with gay marriage, and would not support gay marriage in Massachusetts … but it is really none of my business who does what in the privacy of their own home.

That does not necessarily mean that the state should have to recognize gay marriage, nor should the state necessarily recognize heterosexual marriage. State, and Federal Governments should back out of providing benefits to people based on the way they live their lives.

The state and federal government should tax each individual based on their contribution to society as a whole, the more you contribute, the less you are taxed.

Just because we are married and have children does not mean we should get special tax breaks, however, if someone volnteers at a nursing home 10 hours a week and coaches a kids soccer team another 4 hours a week also volunteers at the school as a teachers helper… to me these are the things that constitute contribution to society and deserve special recognition from State and Federal tax laws.

The gay community is looking for “equality” other than tax/insurance benefits from a marriage, I see nothing that legal marriage is going to provide them that they do not already have available. They may not be receiving it because of a bigoted attitude, but that will not change with the legality of gay marriage.

Our regular democratic process includes
a) Legislatures who pass bills to enact laws. This process is relatively easy in the sense that it generally requires simple majorities in two houses. (Other paths are possible– some states permit referenda.)
b) the courts evaluating ordinary law to determine if it violates constitutional provisions.
c) Methods to modify the constitutions to change constitutinal provisions. These processes are relatively difficult, in the sense that they require super-majorities, long time spans, redundant votes etc. (The process will vary by state, but it’s always more difficult than simply passing a bill.)

This has been “our regular democratic process” for a long time. Who here has suggested we set this aside?

I am an outspoken advocate of gay marriage, but I do NOT support it at the price of shredding the Massachusetts Constitution.

J.

And yes, procedurally I’d have no problem with an anti-gay Constitutional amendment. I’d see it as a blot on our nation’s history, it would shame you in the eyes of your great-grandchildren, and it might open the door to absolute tyranny, but procedurally it seems fine.

Robert> I see this as a question of appealing to a principle of justice in support of one’s own position, but then disavowing that principle when it would be harmful elsewhere in the agenda.

Which principle of justice do you think someone is supporting and then disavowing?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2006/11/legislators_aga_1.html

Or is this going to be one of those dreary conversations where it turns out that only the outcome you desire is relevant, and any argument you make concerning the legitimacy of a particular decision-making mechanism is going to be purely in bad faith?

If one’s premise is that the Constitution, through its guarantee of equal protection of the law, gives same-sex couples a the right to civil unions or marriage, then outcomes make a difference to whether or not something is Constitutional.

A ballot measure banning same-sex marriage or civil unions would, in this light, be unconstitutional, and judges would be obliged to overturn it. In contrast, a ballot measure allowing civil unions would be Constitutional.

In short, under the Constitution, up-or-down votes denying people their Constitutional rights are illegitimate, but up-or-down votes which don’t deny people their Constitutional rights are legitimate.

To describe this view as being “in bad faith” is pretty clueless - your argument only makes sense if the legitimacy of each up-or-down vote has no relationship to what is being voted on. But that’s nonsense. If a Court overturns an up-or-down vote denying Jews the equal right to vote, but does not overturn an up-or-down vote guaranteeing Jews an equal right to vote, would you say that’s an example of the Court acting in bad faith?

I hope the people of Mass. do not amend their constitution to bar same sex marriage.

I also hope Americans never again enact prohibition or pass constitutinal amendments for a number of other things I consider either silly, pesky or just don’t like. (I’d be all for a properly drafted constitutional amendment to overthrow the Kelo decisision.)

So does your question indicate that it would be OK (procedurally, obviously you would disagree with the outcome) to have a Constitutional amendment to bar same sex marriage?

In Colorado, we had an initiative that would have put civil unions in place. (I voted for it.) That’s “rights” being established by an up-or-down vote. Would you object to that initiative if it had been successful?

Or is this going to be one of those dreary conversations where it turns out that only the outcome you desire is relevant, and any argument you make concerning the legitimacy of a particular decision-making mechanism is going to be purely in bad faith?

At the risk of hijacking the thread (but then, you’re the one that brought up the war), if you think the sky has fallen in Iraq now, wait to see what happens if the new Congress forces American troops to be brought home before an Iraqi force is stood up that can withstand the insurgents and terrorists. It’ll make what’s going on now look like a Boy Scout camporee.

The next day, you get a call from NARAL saying that the pro-choice movement disagrees with the rights-based decision reached by the Supremes. They are sponsoring a Constitutional amendment to codify a right to an abortion and to privilege adult women’s rights over fetal rights. They want you to help them work in your state to get it passed - to override the Court via the democratic process.

Do you tell them to go away, that rights questions are to be handled by the courts, and not the will of the people?

Like Decnavda, this is problematic for me. I’m an “anti-equality activist” to some mild degree, and I don’t go to bed at night praying for Massachusetts to slide into the sea. (Just the part with Ted Kennedy on it.)

If the population of Massachusetts democratically votes for same sex marriage, then good for them. That’s the way it ought to be done.