Marriage as far as I can tell is a civil contract between two people, the gender aspects derive from religion ICK.

I don’t see that it matters except as married people are granted privileges not given to no married. That IS unjust, such as the tax advantages to married people.

All people need to be treated equally under the law (single, married and GLBT) and what type of marriage or relationship should be determined by the parties to it and not the state or some other institution like religion.

I don’t expect this to occur until we abandon our prissy religious notions about what is “normal”.

…equal in numbers…

Excuse me?

And so what wrt minority status? One person who is discriminated against or millions or hundreds of millions – what is your beef?

Agree with your comment otherwise.

Gays are a minority.

Statistically. It’s a fact. Across ALL populations, in the world, in the history of the human species.

Get used to it. And own up to it, for god’s sake, to do any other wise is only killin yer cause.

Now, on MY high horse, I’ll suggest our constitution, which NEVER was written at a time to include disenfranchised minorities such as male and female homosexuals, STILL provides legal precedent for their rights.

And, I’ll add, as my PERSONAL beliefs, that gays of both genders, and transgenders too, are by NATURAL LAW OF COMMON REASON, entitled to any rights and benefits, as those who are not gay, or transgendered.

My point? Stop trying to pass yourselves off as equal in numbers, cuz yer not.

But I share your beliefs that you ARE as fully, citizens of this country, provided yer naturalized, as any of the rest of us, and yer DAMNED well sposed to get every fuckin benefit singles and married couples get.

You HAVE my, our, support. Stop trying to play the blame game, and don’t use numbers or stats, they fail your premise.

And it’s poppycock.

We all got BIGGER wars to fight, in case you haven’t heard.

All liberty is at risk. Yours, mine, ours. Kapiche?

Harumph.

Civil Marriage for all, separate from marriage through religious institutions is the way to go.

Agreed.

I would argue (respectfully) though, that “a step further” would be to suggest that the right never existed, that the Fourteenth Amendment didn’t already preclude a state or the Federal government from excluding anyone from that “right.”

I was referring to Suz’s comment, not yours….