Phill, how many married gays do you know from 1969?

The decision specifically addressed racial classifications. 'Sexual' can be argued to be a classification as well but that issue is not covered by Loving. I would use Loving as an argument myself but it doesn't cover gay marriage. If it did then we'd have gay marriage now.

Loving set the precedent that the equal opportunities clause doesnt mean all people can be equal separately. In other words a black man was free to marry a black woman is equal to a white man is free to marry a white woman but that didnt justify the white man not being able to marry the black woman.

Right now gay people are free to marry people of the opposite sex but that is exclusionary of them being free to marry someone of the same sex. Basically long story short Loving makes it very clear that outside of extreme judicial bias the first time SCOTUS hears a gay marriage case is the last time gay marriage will be illegal in the US.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...tradition.html

It isn't bigoted because it's not necessarily hateful or aimed at denying persons the same rights conferred by marriage. The non-bigots opposed to gay marriage, from what I observe, are willing to confer all of the rights while keeping the word. I don't think it practical to expect those who oppose gay marriage for the reasons I listed to suddenly drop their objections and so I take the long view. I'd prefer not to see another issue that keeps the Red States solidly red.

Here's a random youtube. I don't think this minister is a bigot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyyD60KWJj0

Here's another that must really sting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y1zWmaTAc4

Howard,

America has a strong history with "not the same but its basically identical". What separates the idea of "all the rights of marriage but non of the name of marriage" from whites and coloreds only water fountains?

It's not 'basically identical' it is identical in every way except for a word. Gays would not have to 'have your rights over here but not over there.' I understand the want but I nod towards practicality. If I didn't think that I'd get there eventually, that the fight is now or never, I'd be with you but that's not the case, imo. Wait a bit and avoid the pain is the better way, imo.

I'm not sure this is accurate

You really need to start understanding the cultural and societal implications of separation of legal statuses

The problem I have is that by not allowing gay couples to use the word marriage, they are sending the message that the gay relationships are less than the straight ones. But forcing the use of different words, they are saying that they aren't equal (and I don't mean equal in terms of rights, I mean equal in a more subjective sense). This certainly feels hateful.

I would disagree. I don't know much about this guy other than that he is using the "Bible says so" argument. So I will assume he views homosexual relationships (or at least sex) as sinful. He'll give the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing, but he's still telling homosexuals that their actions are sinful and wrong, and that they should go against their nature in order to be good people. This doesn't sound very loving.

Also, I know it wasn't the point you were making, but I want to say again that I think it's horrible that people want the government to legislate their religious beliefs onto the entire nation. If they want to live in a theocracy, their are countries out there they could live in, but from the start, the US was made to avoid forcing one's religious values on the rest of us.

Watch that arbiter of all things right wing, Fox News, and you will see the hosts advocating that marriage should be between a man and a woman while allowing for gays to have all the rights and privileges of marriage by any other name.
I can equally tell you that you should come to understand those same implications when creating the dynamics of radicalized voting blocs.

I'm not one to put words into someone else's mouth.

Horrible but predictable. At least we live in the U.S. where we can fight for what we think is right and likely prevail and not Iran or, much worse for gays, Uganda.

For me it's tactics and I prefer the long game as less destructive.

What does a TV show have to do with the views of everyday American Bigots, go to a white southern church on a Sunday and ask if the Gays should have equal rights except the title "marriage"

But they change with attitudes. You do seem to agree that its right they get the same rights. Look at the way attitudes towards black people have changed once they got the same rights.
Radicalizing voting blocks will change. It'll be more or less impossible to reverse it once its been legitimised federally imo. Also these radicalized voting blocs come more from the news sources and ridiculous partisanship than the actual issues at hand.

This argument is such a non-starter. If the "word" didnt matter we wouldnt be having this discussion, so "except for a word" is a huge understatement.

Fox News is a window into such people's thinking and the only one I have bec I don't run across many people that think that way that I know of. Which is one reason that it's a good idea not to talk politics at the poker table or in any social situation actually. This very subject came up once at the table and the guy on my right said: 'I'm very conservative. I don't understand gays. I mean, why would you do that to yourself?' So I had a choice: Change the subject or hit him w/ one of the drink tables.

'white southern church' is presumptuous. I don't think the ministers in those 2 videos come from white southern churches. I could be wrong but I don't think so.

It's a lot different now than at the beginning of the civil rights movement and I think that it's mostly bec of the new generation, not the oldsters that finally came around. I'm suggesting that waiting for that new generation will cause less strife and contentiousness at relatively little cost. Others are impatient, which I understand.

I think you've got your last sentence backwards. Fox News would be a bust if not for their viewers. They are the echo, not the shout.