In one instance, it’s people voting for their President. In the other, it’s people voting on whether to continue denying a fundamental right to a portion of the population.

And Democrats had a fit because of the debacle in Florida, the popular vote count was just icing on the cake.

And how in the world has marriage become a “fundamental right”?

What about sex with minors? Don’t we have a fundamental right to engage in consensual sex with minors?

What about sex with a goat? Don’t we have a fundamental right to do what we wish with our property?

Where do you draw the line? I take that back, because with you democrats, there is no line - the line is wherever you need it to be to please whatever group you need to at the moment to get some votes. You’re depraved.

Ok, the “you’re depraved” comment wasn’t necessarily aimed at you specifically, Adrian, as it is toward those on the left who seem to have no morals when it comes to anything.

I don’t want to steer the topic too far off course, but I do find it interesting that the left considers marriage a fundamental right. A fundamental right is the right to free speech, or the right to keep and bear arms, but you don’t seem to have any problem with laws denying the 2nd amendment… It’s hypocrisy, complete and utter hypocrisy.

Liberals only want to support the “rights” that they believe in, and could care less about the ones they don’t believe in.

We’ve allowed politicians to vote away the 2nd amendment rights of citizens over and over, and especially so in my home state of Illinois. WHERE IS THE LIBERAL OUTCRY on the denial of MY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to bear arms?

I don’t define a fundamental right the same way that you would, but I suppose I’ll have to yield some ground since the US Supreme Court has even declared the “right to marry” a fundamental right. However, I am also of the mindset that the courts should not magically come up with new laws or legislation.

Perhaps the solution to all of this is to have government stop recognizing marriage altogether when it comes to tax breaks and what not.

The fundamental right at issue is both marriage and gender discrimination. I am allowed by the government to marry the person I love, while the guy that lived across the hall from me for the last two years is not allowed to marry the person he loves, because of their genders.

Doing away with federal recognition of marriage would be my preferred solution as well. Have governments recognize ‘partnerships’ or something, and let churches and civil society define the word ‘marriage’.

Comparing gay people with pedophiles and people who rape animals is Rick Santorum-esque.

Contrary to your capital letters, plenty of liberals support individual gun ownership, such as myself, Howard Dean, Bill Richardson, Brian Schweitzer, etc.

Adrian, I’m glad we can find some common ground on the governmental recognition of marriage. If there is a church that will allow the marriage of a gay couple, that is a private issue and I don’t have an issue with that.

I do have a problem with government, or more likely the court system, redefining the meaning of marriage.

As far as democrats supporting gun rights, I know there are pro-gun democrats, we have some in Illinois and if it weren’t for them crossing over and voting down anti-gun bills with the Republicans in the Illinois legislature - we’d be worse off than we are now.

As far as Howard Dean, c’mon Adrian, you can do better than that… http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Gun_Control.htm

Howard Dean is hardly pro-gun. Anyone who supports the assault weapons ban, or supports the right of states to have stringent restrictions on firearms (they call this “common sense regulation”) is not pro-gun. Yeah, I understand Howard Dean comes from Vermont which has among the most liberal gun laws in the country, but he is not a pro-gun politician. The only reason the NRA supports him is because he supports a states rights stance on gun control. I don’t think states should have the ability to legislate away gun rights because they feel the US Constitution doesn’t apply to them.

He also stated “hunters don’t need AK47s”, well by this logic, nobody *needs* anything. Why do you need a high powered sports car to drive 55mph on the highway?