Im just wondering if civil rights and the use of the term has ever been used for sexual behaviors. It seems to me it was a garantee to fight racism and or sexism. Is the fact that any man has the right to marry any woman really in doubt? Equality in fact is here in a way, no one is stopping any man from marrying. Or any woman. Just not same sex marriages.however those people in gay rights movement do have the right to opposite sex marriages, its ok if they don't want them, but the fact is they have exact same rights as everyone else. who is to say if gay rights guys get marriage, that some straight people won't lie about sexuality and marry just to get benifits of marriage? I think single people deserve rights too, maybe the people who believe marriage is outdated institution deserve civil rights, a civil union for straight folks? i mean the repurcussions of this go on for miles! I dunno maybe after this we will get smokers rights campaign too. I get harassed over smoke outside now, Im gonna start going radical on these non smoking fools! My point is in a way everyone wants some change, but can everything be called a civil right? These are honest questions, if looked at legally any man can marry any woman, everyone has equal rights in that respect. The more you change things the more people want change I guess, but think of all the things to follow before we jump into things.

The argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for same-sex equality within the institution of marriage.

--There are approximately 6 to 8 million individuals in the United States who identify themselves as homosexual and who prefer same-sex partners. Under current laws, however, a homosexual that seeks, now or in the future, to marry a same-sex partner is prohibited from doing so.
--Equal rights and liberties in the pursuit of happiness imply that a homosexual should be free to legally marry a same-sex partner.
--Two unmarried people of the opposite sex are currently free to marry one another, and laws allow them to do so.
--Two unmarried people of the same sex are currently not free to marry one another, and laws currently do not allow two such individuals to marry one another.
--This constitutes a violation of the principle of equal rights and liberties in the pursuit of happiness.

Thanks, that makes sense. I guess freedom to pusue happiness is a right, I was just wondering how we actually expand civil rights to this issue in a legal sense. Your answer helped me see the way.

All rights originate from collective agreements by a majority of participants to the political process in this country.

To say they are either universal, of God, or natural neglects the reality that they are merely agreements that must be protected, encouraged, and revisited for the purpose of ammending them one way or another in order to further them or reduce them, or losing them entirely.

This truth is self evident and it is not to be confused with supernatural beings and their powers or blind faith.

Actually, onlyinNY, my beloved partner of 20 years and I do not have the same rights as straight married couples. Here are some of the more than 1,049 federal rights given to married straight couples on day one of their marriages, that are denied same-sex partners because we cannot obtain a civil marriage through our state government:

* Visitation rights should our partner be hospitalized
* Inheritance from a partner under state intestate laws (which take effect when one dies without a will)
* Denial of community property rights in community property states
* Being able to make medical decisions for our partners in emergencies
* Being able to get wrongful death benefits as a surviving partner through wrongful death suits (gay people whose partners died in 9/11 have been fighting this battle in NY)
* Lack of access to the federal Medical Leave act benefits
* Inability in many states to adopt the children of our partners
* Denial of shared federal benefits like Social Security and Medicare
* Inability to avoid estate, inheritance, and other taxes that married couples are not assessed
* Inability to sponsor our foreign partners for citicenzenship in the US

GAO study cataloging these federal rights

It should also be noted that homosexuality is not just a "sexual behavior." While the act of sex may be considered a choice, sexual orientation is part of one's innate sense of being. Those who discriminate against us are in effect doing so because of who we *are,* not because of our sex partners.

I was stating that you could marry opposite sex just as anyone can, on a simple basis that is equal, I was looking for logical path you can follow to EXPAND civil rights to your needs. The truth is you don't want your rights as they are now, you want an expansion of them. I think we are lucky to live in a country wghere we can expand our liberties and freedoms and was asking how can we make legal argument.

Expanded rights sound an awful lot like the "special rights" argument to me. We don't want to go there. I prefer to think of it not as an extra right, but a right that is denied us. We cannot have *equal* rights without having equal marriage rights. It is the fair, and constitutional, thing to do.

If you want to show how unfair it is, what if the shoe were on the other foot? Only same-sex marriages were allowed. Anyone can marry, but only your own sex. So, therefore, we all have equal marriage rights. How would heterosexuals feel about that?

Oh and if you read BNW's answer i think he helped me see the direct path, he cut through all the crap and put it squarely where I believe it lies, the right to pursue happiness.

Yes, I figured that was your position.

Well, let's assume for a moment that the shoe was on the other foot. Let's assume that gays and lesbians were the majority in this country, and that their rights to marry were guaranteed under the law, but those of straight people were not.

You were born straight, were you not?

So under my hypothetical, would you -- a straight person -- marry someone of the same sex -- someone you did not love and for whom you felt no commitment -- just so you could "fit in" and be granted "rights"?

Id want to expand the rights to include my side, Thats a simple truth. If you add things to laws, change them, even for the better it is expansion, and thats not negative its just a fact!

Gay and lesbian couples want the same federal and state rights that straight married couples have under law, and the same responsibilities.

That is an equal protection argument, and it is not "crap."

Sex is a civil right and a law of nature. Its more of a question of how you define sex. There are no limits to where one can draw or imagine the line between perversion and wholesome sex.

Im a straight to the point type of person, I refer to all details as crap, The main argument, made so directly and correctly by BNW, covers it all. thats just my way of dismissing details and getting to the major underlying point, I did not mean to label things that you have experienced in an offensive manner, Im just a sort of rough old redneck stonemason. I often look at jobs the sameway, kind of a big picture point of veiw, I guess using my words a bit to carelessly is a flaw and I'm sorry!

Linguistically, you are correct, and I understand what you mean. But you may or may not know that the religious right has used the "special rights" claim as a club against us for decades. So we naturally cringe when we hear something along those lines.

The equal protection argument is much clearer and is basically the crux of the argument. Heterosexuals can marry who they love. We can't. The issue is really that simple.

I don't listen to the religious right, or the far left, I have a minor problem with inflexible people, which is quite odd considering I am undoubtedly the most stubborn SO_ I know!!

I appreciate your explanation.

When you asked for a "main argument," I assumed you meant a legal argument under constitutional law. Equal protection is one constitutional basis for claiming rights. "Pursuit of happiness" appears in our Declaration of Independence, but not in our Constitution.

Its still a right, as long as your pursuit doesn't victimize others, Which yours doesn't. BNW answered that question and I figured out the thing about straight people cheating this law by marrying freinds to gain benifits, on my own, Its kind of easy, theyd be doing it already, just with opposite sex partners, so that was a red herring, someone said it and it made me think for a second.

Government should never stand in the way of two loving people being able to share their lives.