Religiously, I think that gay people have the same rights as straight people. I don't care if they get married or not. I believe in God, and I believe that marriage is a sacred and holy bond between a man and a woman, but that doesn't mean that I can infringe on the rights of other people who may or may not believe in God. It's not my place to say no, I don't have that right. Politically, we as a people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Banning gay marriage infringes on all three of those rights. Banning it means that the gays cannot live their life the way that straights can. It infringes on their liberty, because they are people too, and obviously it infringes on them being happy. Why should a man and a woman have a right to be married and miserable, but two men or two women have no right to marry and be happy? On the sexual side, what people do behind closed doors in none of our business, plain and simple.
Secular vs religious. For the most part, the gay marriage issue has been primarily based on emotional/religious beliefs, as most of the political ones sort of deflect, either through saying it's up to states to decide, or this or that. For the most part, however, the church has had no shortage of direct opinion on the matter -- what I like about the video is that that church in particular is calling out the media on oversimplification of the issue, trying to scrounge up strong rhetoric based on emotion, when really, the issue is constitutionality vs. control.
What's worse is that all of this is pretty much a complete waste of time and taxpayers' money. Prop. 8 was overturned in California for its unconstitutionality, what's to say it won't be the same for Amendment 1?
Prop. 8 is still in court, actually. The two cases are also quite different. Prop. 8 involved a situation in which the state had previously provided equal marriage rights, only banning those rights after the fact. This was cited in the decision by the 9th Circuit to overturn Prop. 8. In NC, however, those rights were never provided to gay couples, so it's not at all the same situation. It's also not certain that the 9th Circuit's decision on Prop. 8 will stand.
"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,"
I will paraphrase Washington governor Christine Gregoire
"Some say domestic partnerships are the same as marriage. Thatís a version of the discriminatory, separate but equal argument of the past"
Honestly this is probably the most damning argument for gay marriage. It boils it down to a pure issue of civil and human rights, something that anyone would be hard pressed to support the arguments against it when it only shows parallels between those who stood against women's suffrage, the sexual revolution and the civil rights movement
So congratulations, North Carolina. Last night, you struck a decisive blow for loneliness. And tonight, as you go to sleep beside your heterosexual life mate, you can rest assured that all across your great state, a gay man or lesbian woman is crying themselves to sleep in solitude and making your relationship stronger with each tear. ó STEPHEN COLBERT
Just flip that view around. Remember that there were people during Jim Crow and during Slavery who knew exactly what was wrong (plenty of people) and it wasn't about how people "in that time" thought it was OK. It's about specific people being very wrong. And the struggle to get it fixed.