Unlike sex, marriage is a social construct, so I don’t see how one can be born monogamist, polygamist or misogamist.

Don C, I hereby satisfy your expressed desire for everyone to know that you, indeed, kept leaving comments even though I stopped turning them on.

-form a more perfect union (I for one consider it my duty as a citizen to improve the state of the state insofar as I am able)
establish justice (see also: decision in Iowa, for a detailed explanation of why restricting marriage to oppositesex couples is unjust)
-ensure domestic tranquility (I don’t like having to keep having this argument any more than you do; less, probably)
-provide for the common defense (…okay, I’m just reaching here)
promote the general welfare (Math time! Effect on oppositesex couples: 0. Effect on same-sex couples: +. Net result: +!)
secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity (because it’s not just selfinterest. For those of us who are capable of empathy, it’s the interest of generations who shouldn’t have to be unhappy just because we couldn’t get our shit together and give them equal rights.)

Gee, that sounds awfully familiar…Nah, I must be thinking of something else. I mean, what kind of nation would consider goals like that important?

What was the problem with my argument @ 212 for recognizing marriages in a gender-neutral manner? (i.e. without regard for the sex of the spouses, just as we recognizes marriages in a race-neutral manner without regard for the race of the spouses, and not putting a different label on same-sex marriages just as we don’t put a different label on interracial marriages)

If you don’t bother to refute someone who makes the argument you requested—one that focuses on the state’s interest in marriage—you look just that much more silly claiming that no one has made such an argument.

“Itself unconstitutional.”

What hard evidence supports that claim?

Itself unconstitutional.

Some of us are not arguing that the state recognize all marriage, hetero, and non-hetero. The word itself connotes religious tradition: civil unions for all a better solution. Not exactly same as No on prop. 8—8 should not have been put to a vote (the rage should be directed not at the hordes of xtians and other monotheists who voted for it, but for the justices who allowed it to be placed on the ballot). We’re arguing that that state has no business being involved in ANY civil union, cohabitation contract, domestic partnership, etc., unless agreed to.

I think he likes it too.

Would it help Don C if we all wore black leather masks, beat you with the thick thick Penguin edition of “Discipline and Punish” and didn’t play the soundtrack from ‘Eyes Wide Shut”?

I ask only out of curiosity and the small matter of a sporty wager about whether you’ll quote the Bible at some point.

Well there is irony, that’s for sure. None of us has any idea about how “selfless” his act of “advising” is or where any real advice in his comments lay. Yes there is difficulty selling the whole gay marriage idea to the “majority” – at the current rate it will take some time yet before it encompasses the nation, but it is moving. No one has disputed that, but based on his selfless advice to date, regardless of if he is doing DA’s duty, he is a trolling dude.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION PREAMBLE:

“We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.”

ICK! ‘Fundies’ ;)

My’s goal is to get y’all to bid us all a final farewell (and really really mean it this time) and slam the door on your way out at least a half-dozen more times before the end of the day.

Now, dance for me, monkey! Dance!

You really do need to apply a modicum of self-criticism and self-refutation if you hope to ever improve your argument for homosexual “marriage”.

But, clearly, that is not ya’ll’s goal.