All persons have equal Inalienable Rights. You could say that the term "Inalienable" is defined as not allowed to be transfered to the decisions or approval of others who might oppose the Right in question while the activities which fall under Rights are not required to be enumerated (specifically listed ). In general, the activities of Rights protected by our Constitutions are left open for the inclusions of any new activities or beliefs, so long as they can be categorized by an existing Right.

In general, popular or religious beliefs should not dictate the passage of laws. Laws regarding lifestyles, activities, and materials/substances are normally passed solely on the basis of either representing a clear and present danger to self or others (prohibition) or to regulate generally safe and peaceable activities and their objects in order to prevent interference between opposing beliefs and/or trespass against a non-consenting uninvolved person or his/her private property
while allowing the activity and obtaining of its objects in appropriate places or in privacy.

Your mistake here is equating things we make a choice about (whether to do drugs or wear a seat belt) with discrimination based on things we do not make a choice about (whether we're gay or straight or black or white, etc.)

By your argument, it was perfectly fine for the white majority to make blacks drink from separate water fountains. I'm sure you don't mean that, but that is the implication.

All of the organizers here in Atlanta said the same thing. As a community we were not active like we should have been. Sure, we were against Prop. 8 but we didn't get involved like we should have. It's passage was a huge wake-up call to our community (and I told that to Fox News but apparently they cut my segment in favor of the radio host who spoke for us).

2010 seems too soon...

2010 may be too soon to have marriage equality.

However, 2010 is not too soon to have full hate crime laws in all 50 states, to expand equal employment laws, to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Denial of Marriage Act (DOMA) and to prevent the passage of future acts denying adoption and foster parenting to gay couples (as in Arkansas). 2010 is a good goal to do those.

The only thing that the new administration can really do in the next couple of years is hate crime legislation with sexual orientation and sexual identity inclusion.

Don't Ask Don't Tell is going to take much longer. I think a trans-inclusive ENDA may be passed before DADT is repealed.

As for 2010.... I too thought it was too soon. Way too soon. And a third loss in CA could be devastating beyond belief. But, I the backlash Prop 8 has caused has really mobilized the movement like nothing else before and I have full faith that we can pass our own prop reversing prop 8. The only question mark remains how much dirtier the "YES on 8" people will go next time because I full heartedly believe it was their deceptive campaign that cost us the election.

it was for all couples who are not married same sex or opposite.

I respect your criticism as it is civil.

Anyway, I am not saying gay's do have a choice in being gay, like the drug user has in deciding to use drugs. I think it is genetic. However, getting married is an act; it is something you choose or choose not to do (unless you're gay in California or many other states), it is not something that is inherent in being. Just like doing drugs or wearing a seatbelt is an act.

I agree with the first paragraph. The Constitution is the floor, not the ceiling. I also agree with the second paragraph in theory, but in reality I don't think laws, at least in their creation, work that way.

As an aside, are you a technical writer? You have pretty good draftsmanship for a message board.

Well, of course you choose to get married. But so do straight people... I am not sure how your comment explains why it's OK to allow straight people to make that choice but not gay people. What am I missing?

I don't think it is ok. My comment [the first] concerned more how we pass laws in general.

And proponents were not coy in saying that it was specifically geared at gay couples. Don't be ridiculous and think for ONE second that is not what it was aimed at.

I voted Yes on it.

Any sex appeal you had just evaporated...



Jeff, I was talking about California. 2010 is too soon.

as i've said in other threads, i didn't vote for it because it banned gays from adopting. If gays were allowed to married, I would still vote for the bill. I think that the only people should be able to adopt is married couples.

Probably should have explained myself more there.

And denied the possibility of thousands of children from growing up in loving households and instead resorted them to spend their time in a foster care system. Trust me, there are background checks and home visits and monitors in the foster care system, if it was an unhealthy house the children would be removed.

I know there are many checks in the foster care system. One of my best friends in my frat is adopted and I discussed the adoption process so I could make an informed decision. At the end I felt that adoption should only be available to married couples.

And as I said, if gays were allowed to married in arkansas, I'd still vote for the bill.

Out of all the gay-related props, the most appalling, I have to say, was the adoption one. Even given the immense personal stake I had in CA's Prop 8 not to mentioned the endless hours I put into it, to deny children a safe and loving home... it makes it really hard not to judge a person's character is all I'm saying.

I full heartedly believe if it had no effect on gay couples raising kids, that prop would have failed by an immensely large margin.

If Gays were allowed to marry in AR they bill would not have been presented

possible yes

I don't even know what's going on anymore...


Thank God we're past this issue here in Canada, at least...

the prop in arkansas said that if you were not married you could not adopt. It was for both the opposite and same sex. I voted for it because I looked at it from the opposite sex view point. Divorce rates are so high now, that letting people who aren't even married to adopt seemed reckless at best to me. As I've said, if gays were allowed to marry in arkansas, i still would have voted the same way.

I think the Arkansas law could have made a hierarchy with single people (regardless of sexual orientation) at the bottom. It is incredibly hard to raise children as a single parent (my mother raised me), but I would rather have a single parent raising children (with background/income checks) than the state.

Does anyone ever hear good stories about children that grow-up under the state? Single-parenthood has its flaws, but it is better than growing up as a ward of the state.

Do you even know what the adoption process is like?

Honestly the argument you presented is even more far-fetched to me than if someone voted Yes because if the gay factor.

read all my posts and yes you will see I do know the adoption process