You make a valid point; those who are attempting to advance marital equality for same-sex couples do need a new approach. Many of us already take this approach. I must take a moment here to add a couple thoughts to what you have said: First, I think it is important to note that while the strongest opposition comes from the more conservative Christian denominations' followers, we must all remember that many Americans are either not conservative Christian, or more importantly, are not Christian at all. I am but one of hundreds of thousands of Americans who are NOT Christian, and most such Americans do not agree with the opposition to same-sex marriage. In my own faith, same-sex marriage has existed for thousands of years. History, having been written largely (if not entirely) by Judeo-Christian scholars, has entirely ignored this fact. But the point is that my own freedom to practice my religious beliefs means honoring my faith's marital doctrine: one spouse, to the exclusivity of no other, for life. My religion does not care if my spouse is male or female, only that we are monogamous and serious about our marital commitment and obligations. The second point I wish to make is that many people are arguing to ban same-sex marriage "for the sake of the children". I must admit that this point is a serious sore-spot for me. I am previously married. I wanted desperately to NOT be gay. I spent ten years trying to become heterosexual. Three children later, I chose to accept myself for who I am (my only other "option" at the time seemed suicide). I have children. My would-be husband loves them as his own, and that feeling is mutual with the children, who call him their "third dad" (my ex-wife has re-married, and I am happy for my family because of that). It irks me that people assume to know me, my family, and how we live. We're simple people: we work hard, run our own business, are respectable and contributing members of our community. We are mutually exclusive to one another in our personal lives, help neighbors whenever we can, hate the bar and club scene, and are extremely family-centered. The fact that we're a gay couple shouldn't matter a hoot. Thirdly, and finally, I make a request: I respect people's right to believe whatever they choose to believe. I ask that they return that respect to me, particularly when it comes to making laws. Making a law telling me I can't marry my spouse because of your religion shows only contempt and disregard for my religion and, more importantly, the commitment and value of my relationship. If "judge not, lest ye be judged" is a cornerstone idea of Judeo-Christianity, I beg of everyone involved to practice this idea in the voting booths. Until you know me, how can you judge my relationship as unworthy of marriage? Your God is not my god. Is is right to thrust the rules of your God upon me? Doesn't that destroy the very purpose of free will? Thank you for allowing me to write this. Respectfully, John Dixon Port Richey, FL John Dixon, CEO Port Richey, FL scorpio@jandjIT.com

Center-Right? In the past election 10 or so states voted on amendments to ban gay marriage. They carried in every state. In ohio the ban carried 62-38%. Are you trying to tell me 62% of the voters in Ohio are center right? How about Michigan 59-41? 59% of Michigan voters are right of center? While I'm sure there are problems with the pro gay-marriage camp's approach, they aren't just selling to conservatives. If 62% of the people in Ohio voted to ban gay marriage, then AT LEAST 14% of the people who voted for Kerry also voted against gay marriage. Sounds to me as tho most of the center-left people voted against gay marriage too. Also, as upwards of 80% of the people in the country are Christian, many Christians must be voting FOR gay marriage. So you aren't just selling to the religious group either. And, in the interest of accuracy, can we please stop calling marriage a right? This was yet another occasion for me to reread the Amendments, and to my surprise the "right" to get married wasn't in there. There was this part about all other powers reverting to the States . . . but nothing about the "right" to marry. kyle, student penn

Correct Kyle. Marriage is NOT a right. It is a contract. However, I swear I remember something about equal treatment under the law. Discriminating against individuals from being able to enter into a contract seems, to me, to violate that whole equal treatment thing. Jon, Student Philly

Hey Jon, you're right! It's a contract! Remember when we allow disaffirmance of contracts by minors but not by adults? Unfair to the adults! That's extra freedom for them and not us! Unconstitutional! Unconstitutional! I hate when people try to make legal analogies... especially with common law cross-overs. So annoying. I would like to see all states allow gay marriage because FOR ME it doesn't bother me at all. They're not me and I don't see negative externalities. People should bitch and moan about other things. But, the point is, the 10th Amendment does have a say in this. Fire Marshall Bill

FMB- Sarcasm noted. Sorry I'm not a law student and can't speak on that level regarding the law and the constitution. If you think its a stupid analogy based on your example, please allow my counter. From my humble perspective it seems as though the law does discrimate individuals based on age, but is generally forbidden from doing so on the basis of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or disabilities. From what I recall there was some Supreme Court case establishing precedent to include sexual orientation and disabilities/disease along with the others in the appropriate amendment. A comparison to age puts sexual orientation and age on the same playing field, whereas I do not know of any cases that have banned age discrimination. (Again, not being well versed in law, I think the courts did affirm the Boy Scouts right to reject homosexual scout leaders. I don't know how this fits into the logic from the other cases.) What this all means, I don't know exactly. However, my understanding is that the law does not generally afford equal rights to people based on their age (drinking, driving, social security benefits, etc.). Whether this is right or wrong is another matter; the judges have found that such discrimination does not violate the constitution. On the other hand, in at least some of the cases I've heard, it seems that our constitution does afford equal treatment to individuals without discrimination based on the aforementioned heuristics. Thus, to say that the 10th Amendment has no say in this presupposes that sexual orientation, like age, can be legal grounds for discrimination. Frankly, I don't think thats the case. Jon, student philly

I apologize for the sarcasm, little stressed these days. Addressing your response, let me first mention that I simply said the 10th Amendment has some say in this. Let me note that I assure you that law professors and other academics will submit, for both sides of the topic, logical amicus briefs. Reasonable people do disagree on this issue with arguments based entirely in the law. Moving on, let me play advocate (or judge). Of course we discriminate based on sexual orientation. If you tell a minor he cannot marry without parental consent until he is 18, you are also "discriminating" against a class of people that want to marry that minor. That is discriminating based on sexual orientation. Should discrimination based on the age of the kid be legal but not the sexual orientation of the woman? I think so, and so does the Court. The Court's 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia, holding Virginia miscegenation law unconstitutional as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because of the race classification, had dicta suggesting that undue interference with the "fundamental freedom" of marriage might also be unconstitutional. The Court did hold on that though. So, the question is, what is undue interference? Undue implies there are times when a state CAN interfere with the "fundamental freedom" of marriage. Because the Court finds a "fundamental freedom" of marriage, the "strict scrutiny" test is applied. Zablocki v Redhail. In Romer v. Evans the Court found that a challenge to a provision in Colorado's constitution prohibiting that state from adopting any laws that gave preferred or protected status to homosexuals was unconstitutional violating the equal protection of gays because it lacked a rational basis (born of animosity toward gays). In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court overruled an earlier decision (Bowers v. Hardwick) and found that the state lacked a legitimate interest in regulating the private sexual conduct of consenting adults. So where does that leave us, Jon? For one, the state needs a legitimate interest for interfering with the "fundamental freedom" of marriage. Can the argument be made that the state has a legitimate interest here? If the state REALLY believes that marriage is something between a man and a woman, does that provide a legitimate interest to the state in regulating "morality"? If the state believes that kids are better off in a home with a man and a woman and believes that this is more likely if gays are not allowed to marry, is that a legitimate interest? What if they have STD concerns? How do we know if there is a "legitimate interest"? Do we apply strict scrutiny? Reasonably related? What test? What class should review of laws concerning gays be under? The problem with developing these arguments is the sensitivity surrounding the issues. If someone says, "well, does the state have a legitimate interest in not allowing cousins to marry?" the automatic response is, "you're implying this is like marrying your cousin??" The response should be, "well, I think that since the 'strict scrutiny' test is applied when talking about marriage, we need to have the legislature answer our questions about their legitimate interest and their method of implementing that... should we allow people who smoke cigarettes to get married and have kids, but not let gays?" Because the issue is emotional, it's hard to talk about these hypotheticals. What about a law regulating marriages based upon incompatible blood types that could lead to serious problems with their children? Is that a legitimate interest? Could the government solve their concerns in a less burdensome way? I'm no ConLaw expert, although I better be within three weeks. However, I do know that state's can regulate marriages, but not to the end of the earth. Where is the line? Well, that's what states across the country are deciding now. Fire Marshall Bill

Marriage has consistently been recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right. Regardless, the assertion that the 60s civil rights movement succeeded because of a "live and let live" philosophy is so outrageously ludicrous it's hard to believe the editor allowed it. I doubt MLK invoked the author's idea that people had the right to be racist very often in his speeches; in fact, he argued that it was immoral (i.e. against god's will) to discriminate. Gays believe similarly that they are constitutionally entitled to equal protection. Heck, hate gays all you want. Just let me marry a man. Tangentially, the author's assertion that he supports his lesbian sister's right but believes homosexuality is immoral makes me want to vomit. When religion is used as a shield against accusations of intolerance (hey, the Bible says it's wrong, so it must be!), people can blind themselves to reality. My homosexuality is the product of nothing more than feelings that make me as instinctively attracted to men as the author's presumably make him attracted to women. Beats the heck out of me what this has to do with morality. Jeff, Law Student