Jon's right about the freedom of religion vs the responsibility of governments to ensure political and legal equality. I can join or form whatever religious group I want, and make it as exclusive as I want. However, when it comes to the legal rights of individuals in a contractual relationship like marriage, the state cannot treat those relationships differently simply because the individuals involved in that relationship happen to be the same gender. A church can discriminate all they want — but the liberty to do so only goes so far as it conflicts with the laws of the larger society — which, I suspect, they are subject to if the leaders of said church have any legal authority to sanction marriages via a marriage license.

Jon's right about the freedom of religion vs the responsibility of governments to ensure political and legal equality. I can join or form whatever religious group I want, and make it as exclusive as I want. However, when it comes to the legal rights of individuals in a contractual relationship like marriage, the state cannot treat those relationships differently simply because the individuals involved in that relationship happen to be the same gender. A church can discriminate all they want — but the liberty to do so only goes so far as it conflicts with the laws of the larger society — which, I suspect, they are subject to if the leaders of said church have any legal authority to sanction marriages via a marriage license.

I'll disagree with you on your quick stab at dissing “activist courts”–on behalf of millions of African-American children nationwide who likely would have been forced to remain in separate-but-unequal schools, referendum after referendum, if it weren't for “activist judges.” Sometimes the judicial branch recognizes what is right and just before the general populace–it is only the contemporary conservative mindset and its lust for all-consuming power that would deny the judicial branch its rightful place as an equal partner in the defense of already agreed-upon rights and, yes, the recognition of rights that always should be acknowledged by the public and the other branches of government.

I will wholeheartedly agree with you, however, that it is best that gay marriage be introduced in forward-looking states such as Massachusetts and my home state of California. I'll say it without your derogatory “eye roll,” however. California has long served as an incubator for progress–and Californians are not too likely (knock on wood) to overturn such progress with a misbegotten constitutional amendment of the sort that has sullied the governing documents of so many other states.

Don't worry, Eric–I'm sure it will be only about a generation before you Iowans come to accept the marriage rights of gays and lesbians. In the meantime, it would be a good idea to finally put those bell-bottoms in the “donate” pile.

If such rights come from God, then obviously no state should be able to take them away, and if they do impose limits, they are opposing God. However, taking this line, it would be hard to get the majority of believers in any of the world's major religions to agree that homosexual union, making it a state institution, is a God-given right. Would that be a reasonable guess?

Apart from a theistic view of fundamental rights, how are rights granted, except by one group (whether it is a majority or simply a powerful minority) imposing those standards on others who differ? And in such a situation, why would the rights be inalienable? Majorities and power blocks change over time. What's considered inalienable becomes a function of time and the blowing winds of political and philosophical thought.

I believe the question boils down to axioms (postulates) and definitions. There will be fundamental disagreements on those points between those who favor or oppose homosexual marriage. Currently, we have a judiciary operating on different fundamental postulates than the majority of the people — as has been demonstrated in referendum after referendum.

What is the state's interest in defining (defending) marriage? What pragmatic points might be brought into the mix? i.e., What grounds might justify a limitation of individual freedom in this particular case? I don't consider myself competent to argue any of those kinds of questions. But it would be nice to see an open, calm public debate along those lines. I wouldn't hold my breath. I expect people will just keep yelling at each other from their respective picket lines.

Actually, I'm happy that California weighed in on this case before a similar issue in Iowa comes before our own Supreme Court. It means that homosexual couples will be flocking to California to wed instead of (possibly) Iowa, which somehow seems fitting. All is right with the world. Normality has been reestablished. Y'know, 'cause it's *California*. [rolls eyes]