So...

[kandrathe]

If I have it right, many of these are supposed to be sovereign entities, which would mean that the residents therein would therefore be citizens of their respective tribe, rather than of the U.S. However, I know that they serve in the U.S. armed forces (which doesn't necessarily mean citizenship, I was surprised to find out recently). Do they pay federal taxes? I have no idea.. but they are or should be exempt from state laws and taxes. This isn't "discrimination", it's a sovereignty issue. Whether that adds or detracts from your point, I dunno.

It is of course complicated, as the Native American territories are also within State and local juristictions. They are citizens of the US, and of their respective States and garner all the taxes and benefits of their States. Except for some exceptions written into Federal, State, or mutually accepted in treaties. They also have the right to have thier own elected tribal governements which decide on their tribal nations affairs. The Federal government has "managed" (or mismanaged) their land through logging and mineral contracts issued via a Federal Agency which used to be called the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).

NARF - Native American Rights Fund {Yeah, me too. I was thinking of the WB}

Where have I heard that before?? Hmmm.... some people in funny robes, I think... defending the Honor of their women.

Most people have a moral line. I suspect we all find some thing reprehensible and would vote for their prohibition if given the chance.

Me, for example, even though I am a "Libertarian" I wrestle constantly with the line of just how far is too far. I can accept that some people in America want to watch 24x7 porno on TV in their homes, but I would like the option to block that content from my toddlers and someday adolescents. When I was younger, I used to take a softer line on drugs, but my years have shown me so many train wrecks of lives shattered by addictions. Now I seriously question the governments complacency and duplicity with sanctioning and promoting the alchohol and tobacco industries while simultaneously exacting exhorbitant "sin taxes" and boohooing the social evils of drunken driving and lung cancer. My freedom loving side is still winning, but only because I still feel people should have the right to choose the method of thier own suicide. Do I think Howard Stern should be pulled off the air for broadcasting smut? -- Hello, McFly when is this news? Crass? Moronic? Tasteless? Ok, you've got a point. But, I mean essentially he's got the same schtick as Dr. Ruth, only pushed into realms that would cause a sexual psycopath to blush.

I think where gekko strayed in his argument is confusing the legal (State) implementation of marriage with social institution of marriage. I think the Gay Marriage folks see an inroad into the latter, by attacking the political (and weaker) concept of marriage as is written in law. The States part of marriage is only legalese, and in its various forms (Elvis Weddings in Vegas aside) assents to recognize a marriage legally and enforce the obligations of the participants of the marriage. Such as, you cannot just go around and marry a different person(s) each week (bigamy), even if it is in a different State. You have to go through the formality of having the the legal status of marriage undone via divorce, before you galavant off to your next tryst (I'm thinking ala Brittany, not anyones parents or friends (including mine) who were divorced the old fashioned way, with enmity and bitterness). If that is all there is to "Marriage" then of course, why bother. I would suspect that the vast majority of people who are married are married for a reason other than legal. Thus churches are relieved of the obligation to stone bigamists upon the steps of the temple. Rather, the State arrests them and charges them with a crime.

I think eons ago now, Pete and I had a multi-week struggle surrounding an issue similiar in which I think the result was he discovered just how truly jaded and cynical I am, and that we both agreed that massive amounts of education were the only lasting cure. This is a more tangible issue, more so than in our prior discussion. Then I was trying to defend the notion that an enlightened society could allow its base to formed from the principles which he finds to be superstition and nonsense. My inclination was that as long as the superstitions (for example, Judeo-Christian ethics) tipped the direction of the people in the right direction, "a direction" is better than no direction. While not every part of the coda of ethical belief from 10,000 years ago applies to our modern lives, we have not evolved as far as we might believe. So, my cyincal answer to the same sex couple who wants a legitimate "biblical marriage" is; find a church who will have you, get a legal domestic partner contract, and if you believe that God sanctions your marriage, then he does or you are wrong and you will never know it this side of death.

Again, as I said above, it is unfortunate that they are taking this tact because if pressed I can't help but think that other than some sects like the Anglicans, that the Catholic, and majority of Protestant churches would need to rely on biblical texts which are very clear on what marriage is, and what homosexuals are. Our polite freedom loving civil society is tolerant of the atheist, agnostic, Wiccan, or even Satanist, if they don't break the laws.