I'm ready to admit that most sane, normal people oppose this. But I do feel that this is driven mostly by religion.
I oppose the ban on gay marriage. I think most young people - of ALL political persuasions - do, because we've grown up in a culture where homosexuality is more acceptable than it was in decades prior.
Religion may be the controlling factor here, BUT I don't think it's fair to say that it's just religious zealots out there. Not everyone is insane like Falwell - there may be some middle-aged Midwestern housewife who opposes gay marriage partly because of her religion and partly because of subscribing to traditional values, and I wouldn't necessarily call her a zealot. I think traditional values play a large part in this; despite the progressiveness of the baby boomer generation, they're less likely to accept gay marriage *at this point* than do us, the younger generation, because they were raised under a more traditional family view.
But while on the subject of crazy zealot quotes, here's one from O'Reilly, and I am not paraphrasing:
"If I want to marry a duck, I'm going to marry a duck!"
That one amused me.
I know O'Reilly gets a lot of hate here, but frankly, I'm glad we can always count on the man for gems like that.
Then how will it EVER be moot?
Eventually opinions and attitudes will change to the point that, as Hbox suggested, people will question why there was ever a ban on gay marriage in the first part. It's going to take some time, though - I still think it'll be at least another decade, if not more, before a majority of people accept things.
Sometimes the majority IS wrong. The civil rights comparison is excellent because countless acts, measures and bills related to that struggle were often opposed by the majority in that city, state or even the country as a whole.
Study the aftermath of the Brown case, and in particular read Cooper v. Aaron - in which the court specifically dealt with the issue of the government in Arkansas refusing to obey the law set forth in Brown.
Yet the various governments and courts pushed ahead because it was the right thing to do. That's the case here, because there's no REAL reason to ban it except for the simple and moronic fact that people don't like homosexuality, period. Again, tough shit. I don't like paying part of my taxes towards millitary spending and I don't like traffic laws, but ultimately they need to be done. Anything preventing this is ultimately just discrimination, pure and simple.
I stress the fact that the majority's opinion cannot be ignored here - though they be wrong - because the situation here is NOT entirely similar to Brown....because there is a decent chance that the anti-gay marriage amendment will pass, consequences be damned.
We can't sit comfortably yet and bask in the glory of victory - the fight for gay marriage, from here on out, could get particularly vicious.
BTW, there's another issue to this that we're ignoring, although that's understandable - the judiciary is yet again acting a way that can be interpreted as MAKING new law (something that they are NOT allowed to do under the Constitution) rather than merely interpreting the law. What do you think about this?
Look at the issue from both sides, mind you - it cuts both ways. Just because the court is making a ruling that is morally correct doesn't dismiss the issue of whether the court's actions here are violating federalism.
<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/KyoSe7en.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
Resistance is <b>FLAMMABLE.</b></center>