Vermont on cusp of legalizing same-sex marriage

Because everyone gets a say in the direction our society goes. If the shoe were on the other foot you would be here defending the voice of democracy.

The founding fathers set up checks and balances in our system in part to protect minorities from majorities. Thomas Jefferson thought majority rule was mob rule and wanted to limit the power of the people through elected officials. He knew very well that not everyone could be reasonable informed on every topic to make sound decisions. Flyingfaders is representative of a group of people who are not reasonably informed about the topic. This is why others, who are more informed, have made alternative judgments that do not favor their opinions. That is about as American as it gets.

What you are describing is wholly setting aside the will of the people because you (a minority) don't happen to like it. Probably not what Jefferson had in mind.

Your arrogance is amazing. You really think my opinion doesn't count because in your supreme opinion I'm not well informed? Wow, good luck with that one... how American.

When the majority of Americans supported slavery, was that ok?

Of course not, slavery was unconstitutional because there were two separate sets of rules for blacks and whites. Eventually it was abolished. Are you making the case that the minority should make the decisions because the majority is not well informed? In that case McCain should be President?

Or maybe you would like to maybe like to live in a benevolent dictatorship, provided someone you like is the dictator?

Your words: "Of course not, slavery was unconstitutional because there were two separate sets of rules for blacks and whites."

There are now two separate sets of rules of gays and straights. Thank you for making my point.

That is doubtful, this is a slippery slope. The majority of Americans in CA, let alone the rest of the country have spoken to say they are not comfortable with expanding the definition of marriage.

People fear that it is a slippery slope.

"the majority" also feared the expansion of rights to women and black people. look where that got us. someone always has to be second-class because if there isn't a second-class, then "equality" has no value. always in need of someone to oppress.

flyingfaders, there is not going to be a "slippery-slope". I used to be afraid of monsters when I was a child, but that fear did not make monsters real. Likewise, your fear of "slippery-slopes" will not make them real.

Majorities have not right to oppress minorities in the country.

Comparing people's sexual preferences to minorities/blacks/women just isn't logical to many many people.

The slippery slope argument is very real to people who feel marriage will be cheapened by opening to door to alternate forms of it. They feel society will be impacted negatively, and they are entitled to their opinion and vote.

People also fear the indoctrination of their kids in public schools etc. or their ability to teach certain things in their churches. There is already evidence that certain groups want to and have tried to do that.

It may not be your intention to do that Uroborus, but people are concerned.

You use the words like "people fear" quite a bit. We have a word for the fear of gay people, it is homophobia. These fears have no basis in fact.

Canada has had gay marriage for 4 years now. Their children are just fine, and humans have not started marrying monkeys.

Marriage occurs in Massachusetts for same sex couples every day. The children there are doing just fine.

I really am sorry you are so afraid of me. I'm very gentle and wish no harm to your children or family.

Nice try. "Homophobe" is just another generalizing buzzword epithet for anyone who doesn't agree with you. I assure you I am not afraid of you or any of my gay friends or family. Clearly, a reasonable person understands that having an opinion on public policy is a different matter from being afraid of a group of people.

And as far as Massachusetts goes, a man is already on trial for standing up to a school for teaching gay content to his Kindergartner. I'm sure you will say 'so what, they should be taught that' but that is only your opinion. Public schools are for everyone, and should steer clear of using public money to teach controversial and highly debated topics, especially about sexual matters and especially with Kindergartners.

Fear of that, and fear of you are two different things.

Let me give you the definition of homophobia according to Webster's dictionary, "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." I am sorry if you do not like the word that describes your attitude, but until a suitable alternative exists, I will continue to use it when it fits the situation. Your philosophy is indeed homophobic.

I would like you to site the case that you are talking about in Massachusetts. I'm calling your bluff. I do not think there is such a case. The Kindergarten argument comes right out of the prop 8 California playbook. Tell the people the kindergartners are in danger and they will side with your irrational fear. They are not in danger. There is no a single respected medical, psychological, sociological, or pediatric association that says gays are a danger to children.

homophobia. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved March 25, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia

Here is one link I found, there are many more. http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4801212/detail.html

Before you rebut, the point is not that I am defending this guy or his tactics, but it is that people are concerned they will be force fed an agenda in a via public services like education without the option of opting out.

I am not debating the meaning of Homophobe, but how you are using it. Webster's definition does not preclude it from being a generalizing buzzword epithet. Keep in mind that Webster adds words based on their current usage. I would actually argue that Webster is behind on that one, because it seems to be used mostly to demean anyone who disagrees with the opinion of a gay person.

Again, a different opinion is not equal fear, and a different idea about public policy is not necessarily discrimination.

Well first of all, this story was dated August of 2005. Same-Sex Marriage in Massachusetts started in June of 2007 Here is a telling excerpt from the story, "The dispute started last spring when a book was sent home with Parker's 5-year-old son as optional reading material to be shared with his parents. One page of the book depicted a gay family. After meeting with school officials, Parker refused to leave unless they agreed to notify him in the future if similar material is again offered to his son. He was arrested and banned from school property."

The reading was optional. It was offered because one of the students had two moms and the teacher thought it was important for that child to see her family in a book. I would agree with that opinion. This also occurred nearly two years prior to marriage in Massachusetts. So the correlation you are trying to draw is not supported by this case.

It sounds to me like you would prefer gay people to be invisible, to not be represented in any books or movies, or television, or even in life. Is that what you want? Do you want gays to just disappear? Again, what are you afraid of? What would happen if children do learn that gay people exist? I know lots of kids. They know my partner. They see us together. They know we love each other. What's remarkable is how unremarkable our relationship seems to them. They get it better than most adults.

I'm sure my kids would probably like you and your partner just fine too, but I am fiercely protective of what they are taught and Americans have every right not to have a controversial topic taught to them at an inappropriate age at taxpayer expense.

Back to the news clip, the date that it happened does not make it less relevant, it happened in Mass, which is obviously highly supportive of gay marriage, even if it wasn't legal at that point.

The man was asking for him to be notified of material being taught that he thought was inappropriate, and they refused. Basically saying 'we will educate your child the way we see fit without giving you the option to opt out'

Let's say that you had a kid and they were teaching them that homosexuality is wrong and unnatural and not normal, and giving you no option to opt out. Would you not go and protest and not have a little sit in yourself? Someone who did that would be a hero to you, yet you have no tolerance for the other points of view.

I would not commit a criminal act at a school. If I discovered my child was being taught homophobic belief systems, I would first discuss with my child what he or she was taught. I would address his or her questions or concerns. I would schedule a meeting with the teacher and the principal. If the teacher was in line with school policy and I still felt uncomfortable with the policy I would address it with the school board. If I still was not successful I would move my child to a different school.

I did some more research on this case and this is how the federal court ruled, "U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf said federal courts have decided in other cases that parents' rights to exercise their religious beliefs are not violated when their children are exposed to contrary ideas in school.

Schools are "entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens," Wolf said in his ruling."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17302634/

In this case the book did not depict acts of sex. Even so, Parker was sent two permission slips prior to the optional book, which he ignored. The only thing this book did was depict a gay family. Gay families exist. Again, I ask you. Do you think they should be invisible? Should they be removed from all books, banned from public so children do not see them? I don't get it. Please help me understand.

More info for those interested:

The book was titled "Who's in a family?" The line that scared the Massachusetts man so much was this, “Robin’s family is made up of her dad, Clifford, her dad’s partner Henry, and Robin’s cat Sassy. Clifford and Henry take turns making dinner for the family”. The parents had the option of reading it or not. It also depicted several other kinds of families, interracial familes, single parent families, and so on. There are no mentions of sex or marriage, just families.

See the book for yourself here:
http://www.amazon.com/Whos-Family-Robert-Skutch/dp/188367266X

Here is the ruling from the court denying their appeal
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=07-1528.01A

One final tidbit on that case, The US Supreme Court dismissed Parker's appeal too.

no one said they were getting married in a church...

I'll agree with your statement about same sex civil union and marriage when marriage is removed from government and is made purely a religious ceremony again. But as long as people who are married recieve any kind of benefits because they are married, civil unions will just be a form of segregation.

Exactly... our government shouldn't let religion define what it considers a marriage...

Separation of church and state works the other way too.

Don't worry about it so much. It doesn't affect you personally. That's the beauty of it :).