Agreed. But the way I see it, any valid argument that brings one more person to support marriage equality is a good argument.

Your figure is among the lowest estimates, but regardless of how many gay people there are, marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. Fundamental rights remain rights no matter how many people exercise them. You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.

"In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion:...DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."

you say the majority should not be allowed to vote on certain things because they will infringe on the minorities rights then how did one person get prayer taken out from the schools? That was one giant infringment on the majorities rights. And I don't remember that coming to us for a vote either.

You can still pray in school. You just can't make everyone else do it too.

While you are free to discriminate against anyone for any reason in your home, church, or private club, the government must treat all persons equally under the law. While the majority may determine the rules, those rules must treat everyone equally. The majority may not deny the equal rights of others.

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." - Thomas Jefferson

5th amendment: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;..."

14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

"The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution.

The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the Federal Government not deprive individuals of "life, liberty, or property," without due process of the law and an implicit guarantee that each person receive equal protection of the laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from violating an individual's rights of due process and equal protection."

http://finduslaw.com/us-constitution-5th-14th-amendments

Why should a majority be allowed to vote on the equal rights of a minority? This is as fair as a pack of wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

John Adams, the second U.S. president, observed that: "the majority has eternally, and without one exception, usurped over the rights of the minority."

And that is why James Madison wrote: “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part … If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”

And that is why we have a constitution, complete with the Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court: "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."

The difference in our positions is that we want the same rights you have while you seek to deny us those rights you reserve for yourself. Denial of equality causes harm to those denied both directly through denial of legal equality and through the stigmatization and dehumanization that inescapably results from being worth less under the law.

Allowing gay people to participate under the same rules you apply to yourself does not take away any rights from you. It therefore does not harm you, and won't require any change in the rules and rights for straight people or their families.

Gay people are already forming families. Denial of the same rights you have won't change that fact. It will only harm those families. Yet allowing us the same opportunities you have won't harm you. Your position results in needless suffering, while treating all persons equally as promised in the founding documents and required by the 5th and 14th amendments, harms no one.

History has proven that the public gets it wrong many times when it comes to civil rights. Do you believe civil rights legislation would have passed in the 1960s if it had been put to a popular vote? Of course not. Do you think slavery would have ended in the South had it been put to a popular vote? Again, of course not. This is why we should never put rights to a vote. My response to the fact that same-sex marriage has lost every time when put to a vote is: So what? – It’s immaterial – Oh, and I don’t care! Because I will say it again, we don’t put rights up to a vote in this country. A list of civil rights that would not have passed if put to a vote like, desegregating schools, legalizing inter-racial marriage, ending Jim Crow laws and of course ending slavery, as I mentioned above.
One last time…
We don’t put rights up to a vote in this country

Abortion has nothing to do with equal treatment under the law for same sex couples.

That debate is about whether to allow, and where to draw the line. To compare it to marriage equality, you would have to compare it to allowing abortion for some people, but not everyone.

Marriage is about applying the laws already in effect for you, to otherwise qualified adults.

You have offered no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights, as promised in the founding documents, and required by the constitution.

This is just one more way of the progressive movement destroying the church and the family in America.

No they founded our Country on Judeo Christian principles not secular socialist principles. And getting back to the question of will gay marriage bring dollars to Portsmouth I wouldn't rely on it to keep my business afloat.

The Founding Fathers were brilliant men. They spent months and months working on the Constitution. They were very, very careful about what they wrote, discussing and debating every passage at great length. It seems to me that if they had intended this to be a Christian nation they would have said so somewhere in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had no reason to be vague. There was no ACLU, no "Activist judges." If they had wanted a Christian Nation they could have written:

God Almighty, in Order to form a true Christian Nation, establish Divine Justice, insure adherence to His Laws, provide for the defense of His Church, promote His Word, and secure His Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, has led us to ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Instead they wrote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The words "Jesus" "Christ" "Bible" "God" and even "Creator" appear nowhere in the Constitution ("Endowed by their Creator" is in the Declaration of Independence.) Just how stupid would someone have to be to create a Christian nation then forget to mention Christ in the Constitution?

Also notice that nobody ever asks what the Founding Mothers might have said. There were no Founding Mothers. The Founders were all men; White men, many of them slave owners. White male slave owners who may or may not have been Christians, but explicitly forbade any kind of religious test for office. In other words, you have a far stronger case if you'd like to argue that the Founding Fathers intended us to be a racist and sexist nation.

I think you can make a good case that some or even most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, but it's absurd to think that they wanted to impose that belief on the nation, and even more absurd to imagine we should be bound by their prejudices.

"Justice Brewer published a book in 1905 titled The United States: A Christian Nation. In it he wrote:

"But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. [...]

Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions."

Justice Brewer's decision was not, therefore, any attempt to argue that the laws in the United States should enforce Christianity or reflect solely Christian concerns and beliefs. He was simply making an observation which is consistent with the fact that people in this country tend to be Christian."

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/AmericaChristianNation.htm

Good points Robert.

There is ample documentation showing the founders held many different beliefs. Many were Deists, but not Christian. They also were well aware of the atrocities inflicted on man by religion, including the Inquisitions, witch trials, and on and on. That is why they established a constitutional republic, not a theocracy nor a direct democracy. They intended to build a "wall of separation" between Church and State.

James Madison
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on
civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of
political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of
the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty
have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government,
instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

"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

Yet treating others with respect and equality does not require any religious belief.

Non-theistic ethical and philosophic systems, like Humanism and Ethical Culture, believe in equality, fairness, and respect for others. While all belief systems have differences, all major religions, ethical systems, and philosophies agree that each person should treat others as they would themselves. Almost all of these groups have passages in their holy texts, or writings of their leaders, which promote this Ethic of Reciprocity. The most commonly known version in North America is the Golden Rule of Christianity. It is often expressed as "Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you." Or in "natural law": that "no man require to reserve to himself any right, which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest".

Not only is refusing to treat others as you would yourself under the law a violation of every major ethical belief system, it is a violation of the promise of equality in the founding documents and required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.

Legal discrimination stigmatizes, dehumanizes, and causes needless harm in many ways, while treating others equally under the law harms no one.

Who said anything about Republicans? I am an independent. I support free enterprise and small govt. there are progressives in the Republican Party as well . McCane and Graham come to mind. Both parties are being hijacked its not the democrat party of John Kennedy. What's going on has been in the works for a very long time but now they control the main stream media.

Fox is controled by democrats? Rush? Most of talk radio? Too funny!

You have yet to offer any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the 5th and 14th amendments.

What does that have to do with treating all persons equally under the marriage laws?

If we eventually discover a "gay gene" would you allow abortion for those fetuses, or would your prohibition apply to all, equally?

You still have offered no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law, as promised in the founding documents, and required by the constitution.

Your unsupported and unsupportable assertions fail to provide any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the 5th and 14th amendments.

Same sex couples seeking equal treatment under the current laws, is an acceptance of the current family structure and culture, not an attempt to destroy it.

When unsupported it amounts to nothing more than empty fear mongering. But I understand vague and unsupportable fear is your best argument for refusing to follow the equal protection requirements of the consitution.

I knew the name calling would start its the progressive way, think like me or your a bigot among other names. Then they will say people want to take us back to the leave it to beaver days to which I say it would be better than sodom and gomorrah. Where we are heading to now.

"There are about twenty references to the story of Sodom in the Bible, and none of them says homosexuality was the sin of Sodom. One of the most extensive references to Sodom is found in Ezekiel, which says, “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.” (Ezekiel 16:49-50 (See note 5.)) It is clear from this passage (and others like it (See note 6.)) that the abomination of Sodom, according to the Old Testament prophets, was that they behaved with callous indifference toward the weak and vulnerable — the poor, orphans, widows, and strangers in their midst." http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/sodom_and_gomorrah.html

The point of Sodom was that you should love others, not abuse them. It was about harming them instead of treating them the way you want to be treated. It was about how you treat "the stranger at the gate." It had nothing to do with loving same sex relationships based on mutual respect and love between adults.

"Jesus and five Old Testament prophets all speak of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom -- and not one of them mentions homosexuality. Even Billy Graham doesn't mention homosexuality when he preaches on Sodom."
"Ezekiel 16:48-49 tell us: "This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes."

"It was common for soldiers, thieves, and bullies to rape a fallen enemy, asserting their victory by dehumanizing and demeaning the vanquished. This act of raping an enemy is about power and revenge,"

And it still happens today, most notoriously in prisons. It is not about love. It is about power, control, domination, and abuse. Rape is not love.

"The sexual act that occurs in the story of Sodom is a gang rape -- and homosexuals oppose gang rape as much as anyone. That's why I believe the story of Sodom says a lot about God's will for each of us, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today." ( quotes from: What the Bible says - and doesn't say - about Homosexuality)

Even the English versions of this story demonstrate there was nothing that can be honestly used to condemn gay people. Many other explanations including the Jewish versions of the this story agree the message is that you should not harm others but instead, treat them with love.

"In Sodom every one who gave bread and water to the poor was condemned to death by fire (Yalḳ., Gen. 83). Two girls, one poor and the other rich, went to a well; and the former gave the latter her jug of water, receiving in return a vessel containing bread. When this became known, both were burned alive."
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13827-sodom

So when you see verses that refer to Sodomites, they are addressing those who harm others needlessly, not same sex relationships based on mutual love and respect.

And yet many are quick to claim Jesus condemned same sex relationships and use that assumption to justify causing suffering and death in His name, even though it wasn't spoken of by Jesus.

It's time for people to stop using the bible as an excuse for bigotry. Bigotry and Hatred wrapped in Religion are still Bigotry and Hatred. Religion enables the bigoted and hateful to believe that their bigotry and hatred is virtue. Don’t make excuses for homophobia that you wouldn’t make for racism. Just imagine a Christian saying:
I have a deep conviction in the authority of the Bible. And the Bible clearly approves of slavery, and in fact commands it in some cases (Exodus 22:3; Deuteronomy 20:10-11, 14). Furthermore, I belive, based on Genesis 9:25-27, that the descendants of Ham are to be the slaves of the descendants of Shem and Japheth, and after deep reflection I’ve concluded that Africans are the modern-day descendants of Ham. So please don’t call my support for enslaving Africans bigotry. It’s not. It is a working out of deep convictions.
Bigots will be just as free to hate same sex marriage when it’s legal as they did when it was not.

Thanks for offering a specific reason for your opposition to equal treatment under the law. This is a common and popular rationalization, yet it fails to hold up under examination.

With around 100,000 children living in institutionalized settings who are available for adoption who go without family homes every year, the concern about depriving a child of an opposite gender set of parents, fails. We allow single parents to adopt, knowing one parent is better than none. We also know two is better than one, as long as they aren't abusive. Yet those abused and abandoned children in need of homes, came from straight parent homes. Having one parent of each gender is no guarantee the child will not be abused or even killed.

Over 30 years of research has also shown the most important variable is the relationship between the parent and child, not the gender of the parent.

This argument also fails because denial of equal protections for same sex couples will not stop opposite sex couples from having children. It will not make them any more or less responsible about procreation, nor any more or less fertile.

Same sex couple families are already raising children. Treating them as less than equal will not prevent them from having children through assisted means or adoption. It only harms them needlessly while providing no benefit to opposite sex parent families.

"Unfortunately, many people are not aware of the three decades of research showing that children of gay or lesbian parents are just as mentally healthy as children with heterosexual parents, notes Cerbone.

Children of gay and lesbian parents reported closer ties with their schools and classmates.

Patterson's and others' findings that good parenting, not a parent's sexual orientation, leads to mentally healthy children may not surprise many psychologists. What may be more surprising is the finding that children of same-sex couples seem to be thriving, though they live in a world that is often unaccepting of their parents."

http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.aspx

Testimony from the Hawaii supreme court trial:

Dr Eggebeen (witness against marriage equality) also conceded that "gay and lesbian couples can , and do, make excellent parents" "that they are capable of raising a healthy child", and "that children of same sex couples would be helped if their families had access to or were able to receive benefits of marriage".

Dr. Charlotte Patterson: there was "no data or research which establishes that gay fathers and lesbian mothers are less capable of being good parents than non-gay people.

Dr. David Brodzinsky: The issue is not the structural variable, biological versus nonbiological, one parent versus two parent. The issue is really the process variables, how children are cared for, is the child provided warmth, it the child provided consistency of care, is the child provided a stimulated environment, is the e child given support.... and when you take a look at structural variables, there's not all that much support that structural variable in and of themselves are all that important.

Dr. Pepper Shwartz: "the primary quality of parenting is not the parenting structure, or biology, but is the nurturing relationship between parent and child."

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies." ( American Anthropological Association)

"There were very few group differences between the kids who had been brought up by same- or opposite-sex parents," says Patterson, who conducted the research with students Jennifer Wainright and Stephen Russell, PhD, now an associate professor of sociology at the University of Arizona. One group difference that Patterson was surprised to find: Children of gay and lesbian parents reported closer ties with their schools and classmates.

Patterson's study debunks the myth that children of gay or lesbian parents have trouble developing romantic relationships due to a missing father- or mother-figure-a concern that judges making custody rulings have cited. Equal numbers of teenagers from each group reported that they had been in a romantic relationship in the previous 18 months. Participants from the two groups did not differ in grade point average, symptoms of depression or self-esteem.

While the sexual orientation of the parents in Patterson's study did not predict the adolescents' social adjustment, the quality of the parent-child relationship did. Children who reported warm relationships with their parents tended to be the most mentally healthy and have the fewest problems in school."

http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.aspx

I agree.

However I would point out, Murphy Brown was a single parent, not a couple. Two are better than one if they are nurturing rather than abusive.

While many opposite sex parents are not motivated to be parents and have unwanted, unplanned babies, same sex couples must be motivated to have children whether through assistance or adoption. Same sex couples who decide to have children are always motivated, while opposite sex couples are not always motivated.