People who keep saying gays pushed the issue to hard because of Massachusettes, California and Oregon etc. I say to you marriage is a state issue. It should be left to the states. Just because voters in Wyoming or Texas don't want to recognize same-sex marriage it does not mean that they should be able to tell Massachusettes how they should define marriage. If you don't live in Massachusettes it's none of your friggin' business what that state does.

It was the REPUBLICANS who are trying to make it a federal issue. They want to pass this federal constitution amendment that defines marriage for all the states. That is overstepping the bounds of the federal government. Look at the map, yes the blue states think completely different than the red states and that is why the red states should butt out of the blue states' business and vice versa.

I might be more inclined to agree with you if I didn't live in a red state(Kansas). My state legislature recently defeated a measure to put an amendment to the public vote. Unfortunately, Kansas continues to move further to the right and it's only a matter of time before it lands on the ballot. In most states and definitely in mine, once such a measure is put to a public vote, it will pass. Because the younger generation tends to be more tolerant, that might not be the case in ten or twenty years, but it is the reality now. The people pushing for these initiatives are trying to capitalize on the ignorance and intolerance of the current voting populace, knowing that it will further their agendas. It's a mob-rule mentality and it blatantly legitimizes and sanctions state-sponsored discrimination. That's wrong in any state, whether it is red or blue.

I live in a red state. I live in South Carolina. However, South Carolina dictacting what should go on in Mass. or Calf. doesn't help me. And I absolutely agree that discrimination is wrong in any state, but why should discrimination in one state have to overflow into discrimination in another state? We have got a right wing wild fire and we need to contain it before we have a chance in hell of putting it out.

I agree-we definitely need to contain the wildfire. The problem is that the Bush administration is encouraging their right-wing base in ALL states to move forward with state amendments. They are probably thinking that if they are able to get enough states to follow suit, they can use it as ammunition for a federal amendment. My point is that legalized discrimination should never be put to a public vote. That's why we have a system of checks and balances in this nation.

Think back to when some of the radical right turned multicultural marriage into such a controversial issue. If an amendment banning multicultural marriage had been placed on state ballots, it probably would have passed in some states.

I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'm arguing against a federal amendment.

And...multiracial marriages were illegal in some states just as segregation was legal in some states.

I think pushing too hard too fast is what got us into this problem, and it is what WILL put an amendment on the Federal constitution. Somebody in a state with the new amendment will sue in federal court and the state law will be overturned and this will fuel the fire for a federal amendment

There are quite a few people who are strongly opposed to gay marriage who have said they find the thought of amending the consititution to address this issue absolutely unacceptable.

Sorry, the interracial marriage issue was probably a poor example. Yes, it was illegal in some states, but as far as I know, state constitutions weren't altered and the issue wasn't put to a public vote. The laws were passed and remained in place until they were successfully challenged. I just think that it is absolutely immoral and defies everything we stand for as a nation when we allow the general public to vote on issues involving blatant discrimination. It's obvious to any discerning eye that ethnic and cultural tensions still exist in many states. This becomes especially important when you consider that these initiatives involve permanently altering the constitution of individual states. I firmly believe that the Bush administration will use the state passages as justification for passing the federal amendment. The will of the people argument.

There will be more states jumping on board, possibly mine and perhaps yours. It is irresponsible and reprehensible to allow the fate of the minority to be decided by the will of the majority.

I'm firmly against the FMA, too. I just don't think it should be either/or. Whether it occurs on a state or federal level, it all amounts to legalized discrimination and none of it should be tolerated.

With that said, I honestly don't have a good solution to the problem. My best guess is to bring a very viable case through the judicial system soon, before Bush can appoint more judges on the federal level and especially before he alters the Supreme Court for the next 20-30 years. It's not the best option by any means, but I honestly believe it's the only option that we have right now.

Well, there is something called full faith and credit which pretty much means that states have to accept things like drivers licenses and marriages from other states. It's NOT just a state issue. If straight people want to get married in Massachusetts, their marriage is good anywhere in the country. But guess what... that doesn't apply to gays. It's discrimination- plain and simple and our Constitution does not allow it.