Yale Daily News

Yea, Yalies! Bravi! You make us proud.

It should be noted that it's not about marriage per se but the rights that go along with a union that are at stake. How would a loving lifelong hetro couple feel if they didn't have mutual hospital visitation rights or the right to pass on property to their loved one free of challenges by others.

I did not get the impression that these students are residents of Maine. This is not a federal issue at the moment, so why are people traveling to spread their opinions? My issue is not about marriage or individual rights, but about children who prefer to travel to influence democratic processes. Why not pursue Afghan citizenship as well, get some ultra-liberal votes to balance out the country?

Would you have also objected to the freedom riders who drove south to help in the 60's?

GIVE BLIND PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO DRIVE!!!

Stop discriminating against the blind!

They are BORN that way!

It is NATURAL!

FREE THE BLIND!!!

Why are you bigots so INTOLERANT of the blind?

I would love to see Yalies coming out (no pun intended) with the same passion against abortion (the slaughter of innocent beings without voices)!

Yale 2008,

There's a huge difference between being blind and being gay. Gay people getting married inflicts no objective harm on others: it's not like two gay dudes getting married will result in a death. Blind people driving, on the other hand...

your son or daughter resents that comment.

CLAY sometimes holds vigils on cross-campus next to demonstrations raising awareness about rape. it may not be as passionate, but it's at least a million times more inappropriate, and shouldn't that mean something?

Yalemom, very well said.

If I could see just one or two current Yalies doing activism as fervently for the other side of the issue, that would be enough to give some hope in the current crop.

#2--This is why Matt Hoffman's candidacy in New York is so ridiculous. He doesn't even live in the county in which he is running. More importantly, 99 percent of the money donated to his campaign has come from outside the county.
Why don't people just stay in their homes and watch TV like good Americans?

This article implies that marriage equality has, until now, exclusively been the result of court rulings. This is not true. In New Hampshire, just this year, the legislature -- not a court -- enacted marriage equality by statute. (As did, obviously, the legislature of Maine.)

Legislatures represent the people. Although today's referendum in Maine is important, I think it's wrong to suggest that a referendum is automatically somehow more legitimate than legislation.

Give up hope now, "Recent Alum."

I don't know how "recent" you are, but I do know that if you look at the polls, marriage equality -- and equality for gays and lesbians in general -- is absolutely inevitable, because of generational change.

If you look at the polling results by age group, it's obvious that as the older generation dies off, your views will go the way of the large majorities of the past who supported the laws banning interracial marriage, or even further back, those who supported slavery or limiting voting rights to men.

Progress is slow, but we're watching it happen these days on gay issues; this Maine vote may tell us something about how quickly the changes are coming, but regardless of today's outcome, the long-term outlook is clear.

I think it is important for people to stick up for what they believe in. Although the Maine election doesn't technically change anything in other states, the more people see that equality for gays isn't having a negative impact on those around them, the more they will be willing to support (or at the very least allow) it in their own states when the issue comes to them. Knocking these students for going to another state is like knocking the Yankee soldiers during the Civil War, or as mentioned above, the Freedom Riders of the 60s. Should we criticize the American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan because they have traveled outside their home state to fight for people to have rights? And if we are going to have issues with outside funding, what about all the money that was spent to pass Prop 8 in California, and the money being spent to support Question 1 in Maine? Most of that is not coming from those states. One of the great things about our country is the idea of equal rights for all. These students are simply trying to uphold that ideal. If they choose to spend their free time and energy to do it, more power to them.

@2: Civil rights are, in fact, a federal issue; Question 1 is a fairly blatant affront to the 14th Amendment. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

This article is not about whether referendums are more or less legitimate than legislation: it simply states what has been going on in Maine. That said, legislatures may represent the people, but referendums are a true way of putting direct democracy in action.

Gay marriage has now lost in every state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote.

Five states have legalized gay marriage — Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut — but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote.

If Brown v. Board of Education was put to a vote in the 1950s South, it wouldn't have passed either. That doesn't mean it wasn't right.

marriage is a biblical covenant between a man and woman and god. hetero couples can make babies, homo ones cant. giving married people legal rewards for contributing to the human race seems fair to me. studies show kids are better off with a mom anddd a dad. single parent homes are not ideal, and same sex parents are not ideal. just because the chick in glee has 2 dads doesnt mean its actually a healthy thing to do to a child (and despite her hot voice, she admits no one likes her at school).

gay people have the right to get married to the opposite sex. that is their right. im worried #12 is right and america will shift for the worse. if gay couples want legal status similar to hetero couples, then call it something else. it is highly offensive that people want to disrespect a covenant with god to call a relationship requiring sodomy a marriage. in the words of ocho cinco, CHILD PLEASE

Diff. issue.

Because there is no point--positive or negative--to gay "coupling", there is no point in regulating it. That is, since there is no societal benefit or danger or optimal paradigm related to gay coupling (as opposed to tripling, group love, abandonment, exclusivity, etc.), there is no point in the State recognizing it, or even noticing.

Gays love one another? That's great. But there is no reason--other than "acceptance" or "acknowledgment"--to give it equal standing with potentially procreative coupling.

Humans (and voters) understand this implicitly.

You want "protections"? Visitation rights, inheritance rights, etc.? Go get 'em! That's what contract law is all about. Other than that--and unlike anti-miscegenation laws (which CLEARLY understood the mechanics of potentially procreative couplings)--fuggeddaboudit.

And even if (or, likely, when) state-recognized and sanctioned gay "marriage" comes to pass, and just like putting two mommies on the birth cert--saying "it's so" doesn't make it so.

In other words: No one has proposed any law to ban gay relationships, and the law should not interfere with consenting, non-sanguinary [although, one wonders, what consanguinity has to do with a gay couple...] adults in creating legal partnerships for property, access, and so on — the incidentals of long-term relationships. But the people of the states have the right to determine what relationships qualify for state recognition as marriage.

And, yes, I am against no-fault divorce...