[Coronal]

Because our rights as Americans and human beings are protected by the Constitution and are not subject to popular vote. We can argue about what those rights are, but they are not subject to majority rule, short of amending the Constitution.

[mlc9852]

Which rights are you talking about?

[Forgiven_Sinner]

"Because our rights as Americans and human beings are protected by the Constitution and are not subject to popular vote. We can argue about what those rights are, but they are not subject to majority rule, short of amending the Constitution."

Exactly. Those rights are not up for vote. This is a state law change to give certain benefits to homosexual couples that are enjoyed by married couples.

The reason it is a referendum rather than from the legislature is that the law makers know this is a deadly cultural issue and do not want to take sides.

So they put it to the voters.

Considering that 2004 marked many states voting to define marriage as heterosexual only, I am not sanguine about the homosexual advocates' chances of getting this to pass.

The states have the right to ban all homosexual activity under the pain of death, if they wish; recent erroneous Supreme Court ruling notwithstanding.

Enforcement is quite another issue. Even though I oppose homosexual activity, (on the grounds it is harmful to the individuals involved) I think passing a law you can't enforce is foolish.

Opposition to homosexuality comes from our Christian heritage. Do we wish to continue this tradition or give it up? These moral choices in a nonreligious government with a mixture of Christian and non-Christian voters are difficult to resolve.

[Sopater]

Because our rights as Americans and human beings are protected by the Constitution

Good answer... but we're not talking about "human rights", we're talking about "gay rights". The discussion is focused on whether or not a "society" wants to condone and/or advance the agenda based on a risky lifestyle choice. A choice that has risks that are not merely limited to the individuals involved, but to the society in general. Thanks my question...

[RobbyS]

Argue about what? It should be about the language of the Constitution and there is nothing in the Constitution that relates to such domestic institutions as marriage? If you are talking about equity among classes of individuals, then the democratic process is better suited to the determination of what is equitable than a court case.