@S Saxon–you’re right–our rights should never have been subject to popular vote. You mention the Charter; Canada’s recognition of gay rights is at least partly due to the youth of the Charter, and many sitting politicians in the early 2000′s were at least in high school when the Charter was patriated, in late 1982. To make a comparison in US history, 20-ish years after the Civil Rights Act was Reagan’s first term, when Reagan was studiously avoiding any action on HIV/AIDS, a time when gay was equated with AIDS, and AIDS equaled death. Paul Martin’s Throne Speech put opponents of C-38 squarely in the position of being seen as attacking a fundamental element of the Charter–that rights can not be put to a vote. It worked well enough that Stephen Harper’s minority governments haven’t made any attempt to repeal C-38–and if Harper made such a move, even if he should attain a majority government, it would very probably result in a no-confidence vote, or–much worse–invocation of the Notwithstanding Clause by the majority of provinces.

Down here in the States, it’s unfortunate that the Democrats–the erstwhile defenders of equality under the law–seem to have no problems with selling out gays. What other options do we have? Well…I’m not placing a bet one way or the other, but I have a funny feeling that there will soon be a case before the US Supreme Court, and GOP-appointed, self-described “strict-constructionist” Justices, will decide in our favor. It will probably be in the most limited and convoluted way they can manage, but it will be a decision based on black-letter law. Singling out gays for different treatment under the law creates a suspect class as defined by established civil rights law. If the Court says it’s OK to do that, they overturn decades of civil rights law, and open the door to repealing the Civil Rights Act through litigation. If the Court finds squarely in favor of gays–including us under civil rights law where we are not explicitly included, but are included by inference and by growing case law and legislation–then this center-right Court will have done what Democrats have been too cowardly to do. The longer this stupid dance goes on, the more proof there is that antigay Federal legislation can’t pass Constitutional muster because it follows the same pattern as Jim Crow. If GOP-leaning Justices are the ones who finally bring this battle to an end in our favor, it has the potential to shift US politics in a huge way. It’s what the GOP doesn’t want, yet it could give them an immense opportunity by claiming to outdo Dems on civil rights. And the Dems would have nothing to say…just like the HRC.

As with the Canadian Charter, the US Constitution protects the minority from the prejudicial will of the majority. Using the popular vote as a means to deny the equal rights of a minority is not Democracy! It is voter approved bigotry. This “offends the very purpose” of the Constitution.

Marriage equality will be in DC next, then WA and NJ.

New York will have SSM in 5 years time when the Senate get there “bigoted hidy-hole act together”!!!!

The 3 states of Maine, Oregon and California will win “marriage equality” back in 2016 I predict!!!!

Both Nevada and Rhode Island will get gay marriage in 2018.

Texas, Alabama and Utah will eventually get gay marriage in 2100!!!

I will not accept that hets are better than me. In fact I am far superior as a citizen of the world than the vast majority of them with the way I contribute, build the economy, improve the communities I live in without being a drain on the social net. I am insulted that simply because of how they copulate they feel better than me even knowing their behaviour is quite abhorrent at times.

Of course gays in general are not better than straights, that would make us guilty of hypocrisy for sure. I’m just observing that those claiming they have the moral high ground are doing so on a foundation of 50% divorce, beatings, wife as property, child abuse etc and it is quite insulting to be compared unfavorably to a group I believe is contributing negatively to the human race.

It is religion that has stopped human evolution in the tracks, in fact, and I will not allow them to take something from me that is not theirs.

I appreciate your desire to soften this fight, but I expect you will find very little agreement amongst readers of this site.

Marriage is the only goal I can work towards and be proud of. I would never do a civil union which by partaking in it you accept 2nd class citizenship. I think much more highly of my family and fellow GLBT people to concede that.

Civil unions and domestic partnerships have been demonstrated to not be de facto equal institutions and even enacting/protecting them is a problem because same-sex marriage opponents have either managed to ban institutions similar to marriage or are seeking to do so for fear of full recognition (e.g., see the recent Referendum 71 in Washington State which didn’t involve marriage at all). And notice that none of the marriage opponents came out and fought for this alternative form of recognition because they believe not just in preventing marriage recognition but no rights period.

If there’s going to be a fight either way, then we may as well fight for full equality instead of a second-rate replacement. Of course, there’s nothing preventing one from going for both, but the ultimate goal is full equality.

Simple majorities do NOT cut it.

Marriage isn’t going anywhere in NH!!

Marriage equality probably isn’t going to happen in Michigan for decades. I’m honestly not expecting it to happen in my lifetime.

The key to victory is to never give up, but redouble our efforts to win in this struggle. “KEEP OUR EYES ON THE PRIZE AND HOLD ON!”