I would like to reframe this argument about marriage equality.

[William769]

There are some that say it's not protected under Federal law and that it should be left up to the States. If thats the Case why didn't we do that with interracial marriage? For that matter why not take all Federal laws that pertain to marriage and the benefits that come with it away from the Federal Government and give it back to the States. Would that not be a simple solution?

No one Not even the President of the United States has been able to give me an answer as to why some people are protected by the Federal Government and some are not.

We now have a Chairman of the Democratic National convention for 2012 showing the hypocrisy of this absurd disconnect and many people just don't want to talk about it. They don't want to protect me now, will you be next?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

1. I don't have anything r.e. reframing the argument, but...

I think it's long past time to start to treat people who are against marriage equality as the freaks of society that they are. I don't want to have a round table discussion. I don't want to talk about phasing things in slowly. I don't want to wait to see how things go with the military's new policy. I don't want to pretend a person is normal if they hate the idea of gay marriage so much that they inveigh against it.

I do want to start treating these people the way they deserve to be treated--like fringe members of society. If their religion informs their beliefs about gay marriage, then they should be challenged as to why they belong to a hate group. If they use the tired and inexplicable line about "hurting traditional marriage", I want some answers from these people that they won't be able to provide. I react with horror and aversion to these people anyway; it's time to start acting like it to their backwards caveman faces.

[William769]

2. +1.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Interracial marriage was a matter for the states until the federal government did step in with the

Loving vs. Virginia decision. The SCOTUS struck down something like 16 states' laws with that one. The only federal law I'm aware of is the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which will soon be overturned.

[William769]

4. What about the politicians saying it should be left up to the States?

As much as it should be overturned, I don't think it's going to be overturned as soon as you think and trust me I hope I am wrong on this one.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. There shouldn't be differences in common rights between the states nor should there be votes

for or against basic rights. That's why I think the federal courts will and should put an end to this discrimination.

[gratuitous]

5. "Leave it up to the states" is what we used to call a cop-out

What it means is, "Yeah, you can have some of your civil rights, but only as far as this arbitrarily drawn line." Either the Constitution is our guarantee of equal protection under the law, or it isn't. And if civil rights are to be granted or denied at whim, then they don't really exist, and we should just quit this sham because the experiment has failed.

By the way, the same goes for criminal rights, but that's another thread.

[countryjake]

7. K&R!