PaulRevere I've noticed that you haven't responded to Paul Stanley's post. Why is that?

"ReverePaul - love your handle!
Now, I am taking your name as NOT a command ;)

See next comment thread....

no only people like you want to marry goats

If gay marriage becomes legal across America, Moms can marry daughters and Fathers can marry sons to avoid inheritance taxes. Coming to a town near you.

there's a difference between incest and gay marriage

Even if your goat can meet the age requirement, it cannot demonstrate an appreciation for the consequences of the contract it is entering as required to demonstrate "informed consent". Most marriage laws also make it clear they are talking about humans.

But allowing otherwise qualified gay people to participate under the rules currently in effect does not require any other change to the laws currently in effect. There is no rational reason to believe prohibitions against incest, polygamy, child abuse, or animal abuse would change. These arguments are just red herrings. They all require changing the rules and social dynamics for straight people, while marriage equality does not change what marriage is for straight people.

You make a very good point, though I think it's particularly applicable at the state level where you have large corporations in multiple states with many, many thousands of employees and different benefits. I don't know that companies wont know how to comply as much as how to deal with the inequalities and consternation among employees in different states.

Treating everyone as equal under the law whether required or not, is the simple solution for businesses. Many already do.

Based on color, national origin, ancestry, etc.? What if every landlord decides to rent only to straight white Christian men over 40? Where does everyone else go? Or to serve only that group in restaurants, etc.? This is why we have laws that require equal treatment in public accommodations, etc. If you are going to rent, it should be to anyone who can legally sign a contract and pay.

Treating gay people equally under the laws currently in effect does not require any changes to the laws that determine the "what" of marriage. Only the "who" is expanded to allow otherwise qualified adults to marry each other under the current laws.

There are many reasons to prohibit incest, child abuse, and changing the social dynamics for straight people. Marriage equality for gay people does not change that. These are just red herrings. And no, you can't marry your red herring.

Marriage is a legal contract affecting over 1,138 rights, protections, and responsibilities. Because those are all matters of law, the government must be involved in legal marriages. If you want to have a religious marriage that isn't recognized by the government, you are free to do so. It just doesn't carry any legal weight without the legal contract.

It does seem to open the door to polygamy. No goats involved there.

Polygamy is a separate issue. It requires changing the legal relationships as well as the social dynamics for straight people in a wide variety of ways. Marriage equality for gay couples does not require any changes to the numbers or any other requirements. It does not change the rules or social dynamics for straight people.

The same argument was proposed as an excuse to deny marriage equality for inter-racial couples. It is irrational to believe allowing two people to participate under the rules currently in effect would somehow require changing the numbers of people involved.

The voters of Missouri by a landslide define marriage as only between and man and a woman, that's who limits someone elses right to marry to whom they please. If you don't like it, move to a state that allows gay marriage. Nobody is stopping you.
Next question.

The knuckle draggers that voted in favor of discriminatory legislation ought to move to Alabama. They have a long and storied tradition of such practices down there. But this is the 21st century, and there is no excuse for such legislation, just like there is no excuse for poll taxes. Pretty certain the US Supreme Court will reject codified discrimination when it weighs in on DOMA and the Cali law, just as it did with womens' suffrage, race, etc. And that will be the end of the story.

I do believe the Supreme Court will strike down DOMA, however the individual States will continue to decide whether or not to allow gay marriage within their respective borders. I don't have to move because Missouri voters will never approve gay marriage. You on the other hand might consider moving to Washington. Not only can you marry your boy lover but you can smoke pot legally. What a wonderful country we live in.

Do you assume that in order to support gay marriage, a person must be gay? I support gay marriage because it's the right thing to do, and because it's smart economics in that our local economy is competing with other regions that have adopted more evolved views on this matter.

By the way, are these the same voters that rejected the insurance exchange, and who as a result are now going to have no control over the shape of said exchange as it will be implemented by the feds rather than the state? Just checking, because if that's the case, their votes aren't very useful inputs for running an effective state.

A majority voting on the equal rights of a minority is like a pack of wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Equal rights should never depend on any vote. That is why we have a constitution including a bill of rights.

The 14th amendment says no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." (SCOTUS)

Attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies wrote in their prop. 8 filing: "Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution.”

I can't wait to hear this, too. This ought to be good.

Same way smoking pot leads to hard drugs like heroin, cocaine, LSD, ecstasy, opium, and PCP. Once you open the door to the immorality of gay marriage, legalized incest, beastility, polygamy will not be far behind. Study the fall of Rome, we are on that path to destruction.

Funny, I smoked pot for years. Never got into the hard drugs. Next example please.

Very simple. You opened the door with your goat comment. So, using your own logic that wedding an animal would not be covered by the law, it follows logically. Now, using the logic course I'm sure you took in college, If A = B and B = C, then A = C. A is gay marriage involves people, not animals. B = polygamy involves people and not animals C = therefore, since both involve humans and not animals B is acceptable. I used your own logic. How do you tell three "people" who want to be married that they can't? Now you are somehow "defining" marriage again. I thought that is what you were against? Where does is this definition found? The Bible? Oops, can't go there. The Law? Nope, that won't work either. Once you stop defining marriage as between a man and a women and make it between "two" people, you open the door to those who want "three people," or four, etc. If two people are not any danger to society, really, why are three people married any more a danger? I don't really care what you do in your private life. I also don't care what those three people do. Just want you to know what door you are opening. While it seems far-fetched today, just wait. Can you deny that it is any more far-fetched a notion than gay marriage was 30 years ago?

flyoverland you kind of sound like Glen Beck back in his heyday with this argument

I am unfamiliar with him. If you do not want your argument used against you, you should be more careful when crafting it.

flyoverland. We have plenty of examples of polygamy, and we know it imposes a very different social structure than does two person marriage. It is therefore a very different argument than allowing two gay people to participate under the rules currently in effect. Marriage equality for gay people does not change any of the rules or social dynamics for straight people.

mike k. The fall of Rome had nothing to do with acceptance of gay people, and in fact the opposite argument can be made. The fall of Rome started after gay people were singled out for discrimination and persecution.

There are many good reasons for the current prohibitions on incest, child, and animal abuse, as well as polygamy. All of those are harmful in different ways, while allowing gay people to participate under the rules currently in effect harms no one. Your comparisons are invalid as they are very different, require changing the rules for straight people, and again, harm can be and has been demonstrated.

Contrary to popular opinion, the bible does not condemn relationships built on mutual love and respect. It encourages them. A few verses which have been mistranslated and misinterpreted over time are frequently used to justify ignoring the Golden Rule. But those verses were addressing lust, rape, and pagan ritual orgies, not love between equals.

"What the Bible forbids is acts of lust, rape, idolatry, violation of religious purity obligations, or pederasty, but no condemnation of homosexuality in relationships of mutual respect and love. "On the other hand, the Bible pointedly celebrates instances of same-sex emotional intimacy, a fact often overlooked by fearful homophobic readers." James B. Nelson, Professor of Christian Ethics, United Theological Seminary

But yes, this is one of many reasons we base our laws on the constitution which requires equal treatment for all persons, rather than on the bible which can be and has been used to justify all sorts of atrocities including genocide.

There are 8 types of marriage detailed in the bible, yet those who want to deny equal rights to gay people like to ignore that fact, and claim it has always been one man, one woman. They also deny the evidence that shows gay people have been getting married since cave man days.

I am unsure what "fairy tale book," you are referencing. Perhaps, the Brothers Grimm, as that would describe your argument. So, using your logic, again, because there are "laws on the books against polygamy," that means it shouldn't be changed. Laws against gay marriage are also on the books, so using your logic that means that shouldn't be changed. You can't have it both ways. Again, I don't care who you marry. However, if you want to put forth an argument, please at least be logical. The point I made to you, and I will make it simple, is once you open this door, you can't control what walks through. It is just like church and state. While I might like to see a nativity scene at City Hall, I might not like to see one put there by some cult religion I might find objectionable. So, I am willing to live without it and put up the nativity scene at my own home where I can do what I want. If I opened the door of demanding that all religions be allowed to display their icons, then I would have to be willing to live with whatever else walks through that door. Same with this. Right now, you can do whatever you want in your own home. If you demand to redefine marriage, then do not be surprised when the polygamists walk through, as well. Or, do you support discriminating those who want to participate in that lifestyle? If so, that is your right. It just seems to me they are as entitled to redefine marriage to suit their own views as you are.

fly. Rights can be restricted if harm can be demonstrated. Current prohibitions against incest, polygamy, child and animal abuse, have all been clearly shown to cause harm. No such harm has been demonstrated when it comes to allowing gay people to participate under the laws currently in effect. In fact, the demonstrable harm comes from denial of equal treatment under the law.

It was already tried in the 40's and 50's, and even 60's, and didn't work. Ironically, efforts to punish gay people have often resulted in removal of such laws as unconstitutional, leading us to today.

And as to a general disregard for decency, see your own post. Harming others needlessly is immoral, while treating everyone equally under the law as required by the constitution is a matter of basic fairness and decency.

Yep, its a choice, a very poor choice that people seem to think will make them feel better.

And comparing a choice to a persons race is just ridiculous and insulting.

Billy. Every major medical, mental health, and social science organization in the U.S. agree being gay is a normal expression of the human condition for a minority of the population. Being gay is not a choice, nor a lifestyle. It is not about sex alone, but about an enduring pattern of emotional as well as physical attraction that exists even if it is never acted upon. Even chaste and celibate people have a sexual orientation.

"When I'm asked if gay rights are civil rights, my answer is always: 'Of course they are.' Civil rights are positive legal prerogatives, the right to equal treatment before the law. ... There's no one in the United States who does not, or should not, share in enjoying these rights."

"Black people, of all people, should not oppose equality. And that is what gay marriage represents. ... No people of good will should oppose marriage equality. And they should not think that civil unions are a substitute. At best, civil unions are separate but equal. And we all know separate is never equal." Julian Bond

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, speaking in opposition to California's Proposition 8, said, "To those that believe in and fought for civil rights, that marched to end discrimination and win equality, you must not become that which you hated. ... Those that support civil and human rights cannot, must not, become perpetrators of discrimination against others based upon race, religion, culture, sexual orientation."

John Lewis, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Defense of Marriage Act, remarked, "I am very happy to see the Judiciary Committee holding hearings to address the issue of marriage equality. But at the same time, I must admit I find it unbelievable that in the year 2011 there is still a need to hold hearings and debate whether or not a human being should be able to marry the one they love."

Rev. Dr. William Barber II, North Carolina NAACP chairman, declared, "They're trying to give people, based on their sexuality, a kind of second- or third-class citizenship. We know what that looks like in the NAACP, and we're calling it what it is."

The Rev. Al Sharpton, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, South African President Nelson Mandela, the Rev. Dr. James Lawson, National NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous - a veritable Who's Who of civil rights - all support marriage equality and full equal rights for gay people.

Well said, CarrieAnn.

Marriage is a legal contract affecting over 1,138 rights, protections, and responsibilities. Because those are all matters of law, the government must be involved in legal marriages.

No religious belief of any kind is required nor is any grounds for denial.

You have the right to have a religious marriage that isn't recognized by the government, or to have your religious marriage recognized. You should not have the right to dictate any religious requirements for the legal marriage of anyone outside your faith.

Which G-d, Mr. Rabbi?

Jesus? Yahweh? That Tao thing? Perhaps we should submit to Ganesh. Maybe you mean Judeo-Christian traditions... which ones exactly? Christmas?

Please. God save us from those who think they know what's best. I'm happy to live in a country founded on freedom of religion *and* freedom from religion.

What two consenting adults do behind bedroom doors has nothing to do with you, unless you involve yourself. And many of you seem intent on involving yourselves.

In the meantime, I'm going to continue my quite happy existence raising my family to respect people of all creeds, races, and orientations. Your assumption regarding others' lives reminds me of a bit of wisdom in Romans regarding passing judgement. Especially on those about whom you know nothing.

For many, morality is judged by unnecessary harm to others.

Relationships based on mutual love and respect between adults harm no one. Accepting love in no way diminishes the standard of harm as a basis for morality.

"Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal." (The Dalai Lama)

So morality for most requires not harming others, while your condemnation and use of the law to punish gay people causes harm. Love is good, unnecessary harm is bad.

Being in the Air Force is a lifestyle. Who you are emotionally and physically attracted to, is not a lifestyle. It may be expressed in various lifestyles, such as marriage, or being single, and going to clubs, or sporting events, or flying, etc, but sexual orientation is neither a lifestyle nor a choice.

Yeah, I know Dan. But there is not a better word for it. He and Mike love each other. That is all that counts to me.

I'm sure your support is appreciated. They will also appreciate it if you understand neither love nor sexual orientation are a lifestyle. Lifestyles are choices about how we live, and they may reflect things about our lives, but there is a big difference between a life and a lifestyle. Hope that helps.

Thanks Mike. But I am just a dad who loves his kids. Nothing special. I get a kick out of Jake though, 26 years old and out ranks his retired dad. I retited as a E-9 and he is already an O-3!

Many gay people are rejected by parents, family, and friends when they eventually come out. Overcoming the irrational prejudice you were taught as a child, and remaining a supportive "dad who loves his kids" is something special. It requires standing against prejudice and discrimination, and again, unfortunately is not something every parent is willing to do, as evidenced by the highest rates of youth homelessness and suicide.

He is my son Dan. As far as I am concerned he is perfect. By the way, my parents never taught me that people were bad just because of what they are. My folks never rejected my son either. They love him for what he is, a great guy that just happens to be gay.

Glad to hear your parents are supportive as well. Family support often has a major influence on self acceptance and can make the difference between life and death.

But both you and your son were taught anti-gay prejudice from an early age, by peers, preachers, and others, if not from parents. You may have rejected those messages or overcome them upon later reflection and experience, but society still taught anti-gay prejudice as you were growing up. Those messages continue to be taught today, as evidenced on this tread alone. So you deserve some credit for resisting and overcoming those promotions of prejudice and discrimination, as do your parents.

Every major medical, mental health, and social science organization in the U.S. agree being gay is a normal expression of the human condition for a minority of the population. Being gay is not a choice, nor a lifestyle. It is not about sex alone, but about an enduring pattern of emotional as well as physical attraction that exists even if it is never acted upon. Even chaste and celibate people have a sexual orientation.

But the question is about equal treatment under the law. The laws currently under discussion are about requiring equal treatment, not something different.

If gays want to live together, go for it but leave the sanctity of marriage (Exodus 20:11) to a man and a woman. Please don't try to pervert everything that God has presented to Man as good and just. You can even have all the rights granted by the courts, just leave the good Christian people of this country some decency for us to cling to before we go to meet our maker.

So people of all other religious beliefs and atheists can't get married?
They do so every day.
Marriage is not just a Christian tradition, yet many married gay people are Christians, Jews, and all other beliefs as well as none.

Having your marriage Sanctified in any religious ceremony is your choice, not a requirement of law. You can get married by a Judge, county clerk, or Elvis impersonator in Vegas. Sanctity is not required.

Yet again, many gay people who get married do so in their church. Prohibiting marriage equality denies those religious groups who believe in equality the right to practice their religious beliefs as they see fit. You are still free to discriminate in your church. But when your beliefs harm others and prevent others from practicing their beliefs, they have no place in the law.

mike k you know the bible isn't the constitution right

Again, allowing gay people to participate under the rules currently in effect does not change any of the laws or social dynamics for straight people.

Changing the numbers requires changing the rules and social dynamics for straight people in a wide variety of ways. Property, child custody, debt, and other laws are affected. We know from practice, polygamy results in richer, older men having more and younger wives, leaving poorer and younger men with no choices. Inequality in relationships are another example of the many reasons polygamy has been shown to be harmful. These are just a few of the reasons society has decided to limit marriage to one other person of your mutual choice. Limitations may be made when a compelling interest can be demonstrated, but the law needs to be applied equally to everyone to meet the equal treatment demands of the constitution.

Again, allowing gay people to participate does not require any changes to straight marriage. Equal treatment does not require changing the rules to allow something different. Polygamy is something different, not equal.

It is difficult to appreciate your wishes of Merry Christmas when it is accompanied by insults and the message I must relocate to be treated equally under the law. While you and I may not live long enough to see equal rights for all in Mo, like the 10 other states that now recognize marriage equality, it will eventually happen.

John 13:34: A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

Merry Christmas to all.

Thank God I don't live around people like mike k

no need to worry reverepaul, I'm sure your trailer park is quite a few miles from Ellisville

I heard mike k lives in a duplex somewhere in Ellisville. He also claims to be a millionaire.

Talk about a laughing stock.

perhaps when you grow up, you can finally move out of your parents basement

"actually I am a multi millionaire, too bad for you, Ladue wanna be"

Don't forget to solicit him to meet you in the park for a little "one on one," mikey. Haha, you are the gift that keeps on giving.

Person of Interest -- thank you. Twenty years ago I helped begin a support group for LBGT teenagers, all in the efforts of helping people stay alive. The Bush (41) administration had produced a report that 1/3 of teen suicide attempts were related to issues re: sexual orientation. We know we saved lives. I am fiercely proud of that.

Then, we had a bunch of frightened teenagers struggling to be hidden. Now, we have folk like you. I am so very proud of you I can't even begin to say. It is your generation that will finally bring justice to this world -- including Missouri. You are so right when you say "time is the only factor." When I was your age I never imagined that this would even be a possibility. Being legally married now (in Connecticut) was incomprehensible. As support for LBGT people increases, so will support for you to be able to celebrate the love in your life and to be able to share that openly. Go for it!

Person of Interest -- thank you. Twenty years ago I helped begin a support group for LBGT teenagers, all in the efforts of helping people stay alive. The Bush (41) administration had produced a report that 1/3 of teen suicide attempts were related to issues re: sexual orientation. We know we saved lives. I am fiercely proud of that.

Then, we had a bunch of frightened teenagers struggling to be hidden. Now, we have folk like you. I am so very proud of you I can't even begin to say. It is your generation that will finally bring justice to this world -- including Missouri. You are so right when you say "time is the only factor." When I was your age I never imagined that this would even be a possibility. Being legally married now (in Connecticut) was incomprehensible. As support for LBGT people increases, so will support for you to be able to celebrate the love in your life and to be able to share that openly. Go for it!

"For people like mike k this might be hard to believe[...] So when you get old think about this thread"

mike k is already old, so don't sweat it. His opinion really doesn't matter and he's cranky because he knows it.

Person. I agree most young people understand anti-gay prejudice is not only irrational but harmful as well. Unfortunately though, it is still being taught. As demonstrated by hate crimes and in schools, there are still some young people who believe it is acceptable to harm gay people through denial of equal legal treatment, as well as through bullying and beating.

Though all gay people have lived their entire lives being denied the equal treatment promised in our founding documents and constitution, we have come a long way since the time we could be locked up and tortured simply for being gay, and are close to achieving full legal equality.

But don't assume it will happen all by itself. Even after prejudice is removed from the law, it will still be taught by some, and will still be used to cause harm in other ways. And it remains enshrined in the law in other parts of the world. While not directly affected here, we must remember "injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere." Unfortunately, there is still much work to do for your generation, just as there has been for all gay people, but I think your generation is better prepared.

Doug.
Congratulations on your marriage.

Hopefully it will soon be recognized as equal by federal law and the rest of the states. There is no reason to treat your marriage any differently under the law. Fortunately 10 states and many other countries currently recognize marriage equality for gay people, with more on the way.

Thanks for your efforts in countering the harmful and even deadly effects of the irrational prejudice we were all taught as children, and which continues to be taught by some, causing needless suffering and death, here and around the world.

Wishing you happiness and increasing equality in the New Year.

Yes, mike, until gay people are treated as you would treat yourself under the law, you can expect to hear about the prejudice that for you is a tired old subject, but for gay people and those who care about them, remains a matter of importance sometimes to the point of life and death.

Suffering and death are the extreme results of the belief being gay is not acceptable and we must change to heterosexual or live a life of chastity and denial of our humanity, or worse.

Not all Christian groups judge and condemn, and some accept gay people as we are without condition. But those who demonize and punish us are killing us, and most of us reach a point where we decide to fight back rather than kill ourselves or accept discrimination quietly. Unless we accept punishment and dehumanization as a way of life, we have no choice but to challenge and oppose prejudice no matter where is comes from, and whether it is mild or extreme.

Decades of history, literature, and science, in addition to trial records of many different courts have all clearly demonstrated: Prejudice and discrimination cause suffering and death.

Guess what mike, the Constitution is not the same as the Bible. And if gays are allowed to be married in Illinois, what's going to stop them fro being married and other states, which is already happen. Your an old man in a changing world mike.

Have a nice day dickwad

There is no reason to believe treating gay people equally under the law led to the fall of the Roman Empire, or would harm current civilization. As Christianity was eventually accepted by the Romans, the rights of gay people were restricted. You can make a better case if you claim the increased persecution and denial of equality for gay people caused the fall of Rome.

While no one has been able to demonstrate how treating others the way you would treat yourself under the law is harmful, we know for certain that prejudice and discrimination cause needless suffering and death.

Do atheists get married every day? Do people get married by judges, clerks, and Elvis impersonators in Vegas?

Marriage is a legal contract that may or may not be sanctified by a religious ceremony. No religious ceremony is required for anyone. Yet as you realize, many religious groups recognize marriage equality and want to perform those ceremonies equally. Laws that deny equality prohibit those religious groups from practicing their religion as they see fit.

You provide a glimpse of why no one would choose to be gay if it were a choice. Despite decades of evidence demonstrating people do not choose their sexual orientation, many still choose to use a few mistranslated bible verses to demonize and justify legal discrimination against gay people here and around the world, including imprisonment, torture, and death.

Ironically, much of the research showing orientation is not a choice, comes from efforts to change it. Not only have such efforts shown efforts to change orientation are not successful, but that they are often harmful to the point of self destructive behavior including suicide.

"Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation," said Judith M. Glassgold, PsyD, chair of the task force. "Scientifically rigorous older studies in this area found that sexual orientation was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose. Contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates, recent research studies do not provide evidence of sexual orientation change as the research methods are inadequate to determine the effectiveness of these interventions." Glassgold added: "At most, certain studies suggested that some individuals learned how to ignore or not act on their homosexual attractions. Yet, these studies did not indicate for whom this was possible, how long it lasted or its long-term mental health effects. Also, this result was much less likely to be true for people who started out only attracted to people of the same sex." (APA)

If nothing else, they demonstrate why no one would choose to be gay if it were a matter of choice.

The only choice is deciding to live life as an authentic human being, or living a destructive life of lies and denial of our humanity.

As you know from experience what science has demonstrated; marriage has a stabilizing effect on relationships, helping many get through the challenging times rather than simply walking away.

Logic suggests straight folks would encourage gay people to get married rather than trying to keep them from forming committed relationships.

But then..."No prejudice has even been able to prove its case in the court of reason.” (Marguerite Gardiner)

I don't care for the term "homophobia" because many believe it requires fear or hate. It does not. Negative attitude is all that is required:

"Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and in some cases transgender and intersex people. Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear.[1][2][3] Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination[1][2] and violence on the basis of a perceived non-heterosexual orientation. In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."[4]" (Wiki)

So aversion, and discrimination are enough to fulfill the definition. But because it is so frequently misunderstood, I prefer the term "anti-gay prejudice". Hate and fear are not required, and prejudice is clearly indicated by refusing to treat others as you would yourself under the law.

I appreciate your stated intent of "live and let live" and that you don't desire to "hurt them". Yet denial of equal treatment under the law does in fact cause harm, and cannot qualify as "live and let live". Only treating others as you would yourself under the law qualifies.

While you have a choice of entertainment, you may not always have a choice of your doctor, EMT, waiter, chef, or the many other gay people with whom you come in contact, yet most of the time, you don't realize you are being helped by a gay person.

Most straight people are not even aware there are over 1,138 federal rights and protections that automatically accompany marriage in addition to the state legal protections. Yet I doubt you will find any who are willing to give them up.

They also never explain why those of no religious belief, as well as those of every religious belief, are allowed to marry if it is only a religious rite and not a fundamental civil right.