(1) There are very strong parallels between same-gender marriage and interracial marriage. Sexual orientation is no more a choice than race. Wanting to marry somebody of a different race is no LESS a choice than wanting to marry somebody of the same gender … except that homosexuals are able to enter into healthy, successful marriages ONLY with people of the same gender. If antimiscegenation laws represented unconstitutional discrimination, laws against same-gender marriage are even more so. Giving people the right to enter into state-recognized civil marriages ONLY with people they can’t possibly fall in love and build healthy marriages with is giving them no right at all.

(2) Your argument that homosexuals already have the same rights as straight people also is bogus for another reason. People who defended laws against interracial marriage before the Supreme Court (Loving v. Virginia, 1967) tried using that very same argument … that there was no discrimination because everybody was equally free to marry someone of the same race. The Supreme Court rejected that argument.

(3) Nobody is talking about abolishing traditional marriage. I’ve been in one for over 34 years, and it won’t be impacted one bit if my LGBT friends are given the option of entering into a state-recognized civil marriage.

(4) Your comments about contracts are complete nonsense. By and large, the issue has absolutely nothing to do with things that can be handled via private contracts. This is an 14th Amendment issue precisely because it involves state-granted benefits and protections which generally can’t be secured by private contracts between partners … things like social security survivor benefits, beneficial tax options available to straight married couples, spousal employer benefit protections, etc. And even lesser issues that can be handled via private contracts require same-gender couples to incur exorbitant legal fees that straight couples don’t for things that are conferred automatically upon marriage.

“The protection of the traditional institution of marriage, which is a conceivable basis for the distinction drawn in this case, is a legitimate state interest. Black persons may marry in Nevada, but like white persons, they may not marry members of another race.”

The racists of my youth claimed that they were protecting the children by protecting society from bringing down God’s wrath. God hated race mixing, you see…(insert Finis Dake’s “30 Reasons for Segregation of Races” with extensive “proof texts.” Segregation was for the proper upbringing of healthy children who would go on to lead America to ever greater glory. The children born from the “unnatural (like incest!) sin of miscegenation” were doomed to failure, to unhappy, unhealthy, miserable, isolated lives. Certainly, mixed race children could never become President…

It’s interesting that homosexuals claim to push a “Tolerance of Differences and Stopping the Hate,”…through the abolition of Traditional Marriage.

People (including homosexuals) have (always) had the (right to contract privately). Marriage is a contract & divorce is a dissolution of that contract. That is the reason for “Civil Union Contracts,” and is exactly why the Judge spoke of the rights he spoke of, (property, jury, etc.). Homosexuals are denied nothing whatsoever, by protecting the Institution of Traditional Marriage. Simply write your own contract for a civil union, spelling out exactly what it is you are contracting for and be forever joined, under God or whatever deity you wish.

My marriage was not enriched by any homosexuals cheering for or against my (private) union, that I was contracting for according to my desires to be joined. Homosexuals should not require (nor be injured by the lack thereof) my cheering their union,…or otherwise?!? Get on with it, already,…and be happy!