Chick Fil A

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Both sides are intolerant of the opposing viewpoint...hence both sides are bigots.LJS9502_basic

Isn't everyone a bigot going by that logic?

But everyone is intolerant towards certain opinions. For instance, most people are intolerant towards the opinions of Muslim extremists. Does that make most people bigots?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Both sides are intolerant of the opposing viewpoint...hence both sides are bigots.Teenaged

Mind you, its one thing respecting my right to voice my opinion and another thing to respect my opinion. I'm referring to the second.

Saying you simply support traditional marriage certainly isn't hatred and therefore not bigotry. You can have a different opinion without being hateful.

Pro-gays: I want to be treated fairly and have the freedom to live my life without discrimination.

Anti-gay: I want to treat other people like lesser beings and take away their rights and freedoms.

If you can't tell the difference between these two sides and why only one of them are being bigots, then you are an idiot.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Strange double-standard surrounding this whole thing....if you're pro-gay marriage you are exercising your right to free speech.

If you are pro-traditional marriage you are a bigot.

LJS9502_basic

I dont agree with your circular reasoning on this, have a read of this, the smug part applies a lot in this instance.

http://voices.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-bigot-paradox-11216532.html

COMMENTARY |You've seen it somewhere on the Internet: Someone with a sense of smug saying something along the lines of "you guys know that calling someone a 'bigot' makes you a bigot too, right?"

Umm, not so much.

This currently popular and eternally fallacious concept that intolerance against bigotry is somehow itself a form of bigotry seems to have gained traction, despite its complete lack of sense.

The Bigot Paradox is not stealthy ninja logic, it's simply stupidity, and illustrates an utter lack of understanding of the liberal perspective. We don't dislike racism or any discrimination because we're nice and don't want to hurt people's feelings.

We counter that dogma because we believe justice and equality have no color, no gender and no religion. That's not bigoted; that's the core fabric of the United States. That these concepts are actively opposed in the name of "freedom," well, that's the real paradox of bigotry.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Isn't everyone a bigot going by that logic?

GreySeal9

But everyone is intolerant towards certain opinions. For instance, most people are intolerant towards the opinions of Muslim extremists. Are those people bigots?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Strange double-standard surrounding this whole thing....if you're pro-gay marriage you are exercising your right to free speech.

If you are pro-traditional marriage you are a bigot.

toast_burner

Pro-gays: I want to be treated fairly and have the freedom to live my life without discrimination.

Anti-gay: I want to treat other people like lesser beings and take away their rights and freedoms.

If you can't tell the difference between these two sides and why only one of them are being bigots, then you are an idiot.

toast_burner

Pro-gays: I want to be treated fairly and have the freedom to live my life without discrimination.

Anti-gay: I want to treat other people like lesser beings and take away their rights and freedoms.

If you can't tell the difference between these two sides and why only one of them are being bigots, then you are an idiot.

toast_burner

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Strange double-standard surrounding this whole thing....if you're pro-gay marriage you are exercising your right to free speech.

If you are pro-traditional marriage you are a bigot.

champion837

there is no harm caused by same sex marriage, so apart from being a bigot there is no reason to be against it.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No. There is a difference between intolerance to an opinion and mere disagreement with what someone believes.LJS9502_basic

But everyone is intolerant towards certain opinions. For instance, most people are intolerant towards the opinions of Muslim extremists. Are those people bigots?

But the thing is, people are not simply intolerant towards the actions, they also are intolerant towards the ideology.

To use another example, there are some people who think that adults should be able to have sexual relationships with children. The majority of people are highly intolerant (and rightfully so) of such an opinion. If any social situation, if a person even hints at such an opinion, they are immediately met with an intolerant reaction. Are they bigots for reacting in such a way?

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]Being pro-gay marriage isn't infringing on any bodies rights. Being against it does, so therefore they are bigots.

toast_burner

there is no harm caused by same sex marriage, so apart from being a bigot there is no reason to be against it.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="champion837"] No. Because everything that you find not right doesnt affect you, and the stances that you take on them dont make you a bigot. So why should we be called a "bigot".LJS9502_basic

there is no harm caused by same sex marriage, so apart from being a bigot there is no reason to be against it.

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]Being pro-gay marriage isn't infringing on any bodies rights. Being against it does, so therefore they are bigots.

toast_burner

there is no harm caused by same sex marriage, so apart from being a bigot there is no reason to be against it.

Pro-gays: I want to be treated fairly and have the freedom to live my life without discrimination.

Anti-gay: I want to treat other people like lesser beings and take away their rights and freedoms.

If you can't tell the difference between these two sides and why only one of them are being bigots, then you are an idiot.

toast_burner

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

But everyone is intolerant towards certain opinions. For instance, most people are intolerant towards the opinions of Muslim extremists. Are those people bigots?

GreySeal9

But the thing is, people are not simply intolerant towards the actions, they also are intolerant towards the ideology.

To use another example, there are some people who think that adults should be able to have sexual relationships with children. The majority of people are highly intolerant (and rightfully so) of such an opinion. If any social situation, if a person even hints at such an opinion, they are immediately met with an intolerant reaction. Are they bigots for reacting in such a way?

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="champion837"] No. Because everything that you find not right doesnt affect you, and the stances that you take on them dont make you a bigot. So why should we be called a "bigot".KC_Hokie

there is no harm caused by same sex marriage, so apart from being a bigot there is no reason to be against it.

Up until the point where you try to defend your support in traditional marrage.

There is harm and it restricts the freedom of homosexuals.

toast_burner

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

Pro-gays: I want to be treated fairly and have the freedom to live my life without discrimination.

Anti-gay: I want to treat other people like lesser beings and take away their rights and freedoms.

If you can't tell the difference between these two sides and why only one of them are being bigots, then you are an idiot.

champion837

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

Pro-gays: I want to be treated fairly and have the freedom to live my life without discrimination.

Anti-gay: I want to treat other people like lesser beings and take away their rights and freedoms.

If you can't tell the difference between these two sides and why only one of them are being bigots, then you are an idiot.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

there is no harm caused by same sex marriage, so apart from being a bigot there is no reason to be against it.

toast_burner

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]

Pro-gays: I want to be treated fairly and have the freedom to live my life without discrimination.

Anti-gay: I want to treat other people like lesser beings and take away their rights and freedoms.

If you can't tell the difference between these two sides and why only one of them are being bigots, then you are an idiot.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]

there is no harm caused by same sex marriage, so apart from being a bigot there is no reason to be against it.

tenaka2

Up until the point where you try to defend your support in traditional marrage.

And for the record I support leaving marriage up to the individual states and the people of those states.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

There is harm and it restricts the freedom of homosexuals.

JustPlainLucas

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

Pro-gays: I want to be treated fairly and have the freedom to live my life without discrimination.

Anti-gay: I want to treat other people like lesser beings and take away their rights and freedoms.

If you can't tell the difference between these two sides and why only one of them are being bigots, then you are an idiot.

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

Pro-gays: I want to be treated fairly and have the freedom to live my life without discrimination.

Anti-gay: I want to treat other people like lesser beings and take away their rights and freedoms.

If you can't tell the difference between these two sides and why only one of them are being bigots, then you are an idiot.

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Both sides are intolerant of the opposing viewpoint...hence both sides are bigots.tenaka2

I dont agree with your circular reasoning on this, have a read of this, the smug part applies a lot in this instance.

http://voices.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-bigot-paradox-11216532.html

COMMENTARY |You've seen it somewhere on the Internet: Someone with a sense of smug saying something along the lines of "you guys know that calling someone a 'bigot' makes you a bigot too, right?"

Umm, not so much.

This currently popular and eternally fallacious concept that intolerance against bigotry is somehow itself a form of bigotry seems to have gained traction, despite its complete lack of sense.

The Bigot Paradox is not stealthy ninja logic, it's simply stupidity, and illustrates an utter lack of understanding of the liberal perspective. We don't dislike racism or any discrimination because we're nice and don't want to hurt people's feelings.

We counter that dogma because we believe justice and equality have no color, no gender and no religion. That's not bigoted; that's the core fabric of the United States. That these concepts are actively opposed in the name of "freedom," well, that's the real paradox of bigotry.

Any view on this LJ?

[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]

There is harm and it restricts the freedom of homosexuals.

ghoklebutter

Ugh, this threadSteverXIII

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Exactly. Having an opinion on a controversial issue and expressing that opinion doesn't make you a 'bigot'. KC_Hokie

Mind you, its one thing respecting my right to voice my opinion and another thing to respect my opinion. I'm referring to the second.

Saying you simply support traditional marriage certainly isn't hatred and therefore not bigotry. You can have a different opinion without being hateful.

Besides that, based on a definition I'm using (since OT likes definitions) there is no mention of hate (although I had the same impression as you about the word). Based on the definition, I think it relies on whether or not each side's stance (in general; not just what they believe but what role they'd like their views to play as well) is reasonable. If it is reasonable as a whole then the definition doesnt apply because if a stance is reasonable and logical then it cant be characterised as obstinate. If someone would like to stick to the "superiority" part, then every time someone thinks they are right with 100% confidence then they could be called a bigot, which doesnt make sense. So obviously "superiority" doesnt refer to simply thinking you are right.

My point is, there's a lot of interpretation to be made on the definition itself.

My take is that based on how I used the word "stance" earlier, there definitely are people that are against gay-marriage that dont deserve to be called bigots. And those, imo, would be those who simply disagree without wishing to impose their views via laws.

But it does apply imo to the rest who do wish that. And I'm willing to bet, the outrage coming from people who are pro-gay marriage is due to that group, not the other. Unfortunately, maybe sometimes the frustration makes people attack the first anti-gay marriage group as well.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

There is harm and it restricts the freedom of homosexuals.

JustPlainLucas

By not allowing same sex marriage you are infringing upon the religious rights of peoples who's religions do allow same sex marriage.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Muslim extremists have the right to their opinion though we don't agree with them. As long as they are not any actions against others......which is what I think most people have a problem with.....actions...not thoughts are the problem.

LJS9502_basic

But the thing is, people are not simply intolerant towards the actions, they also are intolerant towards the ideology.

To use another example, there are some people who think that adults should be able to have sexual relationships with children. The majority of people are highly intolerant (and rightfully so) of such an opinion. If any social situation, if a person even hints at such an opinion, they are immediately met with an intolerant reaction. Are they bigots for reacting in such a way?

If you could call them bigots, then everybody is pretty much a bigot, rendering the term meaningless.

That children are too young to consent is all the more reason that intolerance against such a viewpoint shouldn't be labeled bigotry. A viewpoint like that cannot be met with simple disagreement. It is an unacceptable viewpoint that must be met with a swift and severe rebuke, which neccesitates intolerance.

What I am saying is that the notion that intolerance towards other opinions=bigotry is just way too broad a definition. Under that definition, the only people who are not bigots are babies.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]You can't seem to differentiate between a legal, Constitutional right and a belief based entitlement which Constitutionally nor legally exists for the nation.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]So according to LJ's logic that you agree with, if I am racist and think that blacks should be slaves then you're a bigot if you dont respect my viewpoint?

Mind you, its one thing respecting my right to voice my opinion and another thing to respect my opinion. I'm referring to the second.

Teenaged

Saying you simply support traditional marriage certainly isn't hatred and therefore not bigotry. You can have a different opinion without being hateful.

Besides that, based on a definition I'm using (since OT likes definitions) there is no mention of hate (although I had the same impression as you about the word). Based on the definition, I think it relies on whether or not each side's stance (in general; not just what they believe but what role they'd like their views to play as well) is reasonable. If it is reasonable as a whole then the definition doesnt apply because if a stance is reasonable and logical then it cant be characterised as obstinate. If someone would like to stick to the "superiority" part, then every time someone thinks they are right with 100% confidence then they could be called a bigot, which doesnt make sense. So obviously "superiority" doesnt refer to simply thinking you are right.

My point is, there's a lot of interpretation to be made on the definition itself.

My take is that based on how I used the word "stance" earlier, there definitely are people that are against gay-marriage that dont deserve to be called bigots. And those, imo, would be those who simply disagree without wishing to impose their views via laws.

But it does apply imo to the rest who do wish that. And I'm willing to bet, the outrage coming from people who are pro-gay marriage is due to that group, not the other. Unfortunately, maybe sometimes the frustration makes people attack the first anti-gay marriage group as well.

Again, you can be pro traditional marriage with no hatred involved; therefore, no bigotry.

You can also be a pro-gay marriage bigot due to hatred and intolerance of another opinion.

Bigotry can work both ways because it's based purely on hate and not rational.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]You can't seem to differentiate between a legal, Constitutional right and a belief based entitlement which Constitutionally nor legally exists for the nation.champion837

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Bigotry involves hate. If you really hate gays when you express your opinion...yea that's bigotry.

Saying you simply support traditional marriage certainly isn't hatred and therefore not bigotry. You can have a different opinion without being hateful.

KC_Hokie

Besides that, based on a definition I'm using (since OT likes definitions) there is no mention of hate (although I had the same impression as you about the word). Based on the definition, I think it relies on whether or not each side's stance (in general; not just what they believe but what role they'd like their views to play as well) is reasonable. If it is reasonable as a whole then the definition doesnt apply because if a stance is reasonable and logical then it cant be characterised as obstinate. If someone would like to stick to the "superiority" part, then every time someone thinks they are right with 100% confidence then they could be called a bigot, which doesnt make sense. So obviously "superiority" doesnt refer to simply thinking you are right.

My point is, there's a lot of interpretation to be made on the definition itself.

My take is that based on how I used the word "stance" earlier, there definitely are people that are against gay-marriage that dont deserve to be called bigots. And those, imo, would be those who simply disagree without wishing to impose their views via laws.

But it does apply imo to the rest who do wish that. And I'm willing to bet, the outrage coming from people who are pro-gay marriage is due to that group, not the other. Unfortunately, maybe sometimes the frustration makes people attack the first anti-gay marriage group as well.

Again, you can be pro traditional marriage with no hatred involved; therefore, no bigotry.

You can also be a pro-gay marriage bigot due to hatred and intolerance of another opinion.

Bigotry can work both ways because it's based purely on hate and not rational.

Did you read past the first line of my post?

Intolerance though doesnt necessarily entail being hateful or irrational, so being intolerant of a view doesnt necessarily equate to being a bigot.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

But the thing is, people are not simply intolerant towards the actions, they also are intolerant towards the ideology.

To use another example, there are some people who think that adults should be able to have sexual relationships with children. The majority of people are highly intolerant (and rightfully so) of such an opinion. If any social situation, if a person even hints at such an opinion, they are immediately met with an intolerant reaction. Are they bigots for reacting in such a way?

GreySeal9

If you could call them bigots, then everybody is pretty much a bigot, rendering the term meaningless.

That children are too young to consent is all the more reason that intolerance against such a viewpoint shouldn't be labeled bigotry. A viewpoint like that cannot be met with simple disagreement. It is an unacceptable viewpoint that must be met with a swift and severe rebuke, which neccesitates intolerance.

What I am saying is that the notion that intolerance towards other opinions=bigotry is just way too broad a definition. Under that definition, the only people who are not bigots are babies.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Marriage is a legal right protected by the constitution. -Sun_Tzu-

States give marriage licenses not the Federal government because it's not in the U.S. Constitution.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Marriage is a legal right protected by the constitution. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I dont know about you but if I did meet a person that really thought black people are inferior and should be slaves, I would be pissed at him/her. If that does qualify as being a bigot then there certainly must be different types of bigots, and the word carries no definite negative meaning whatsoever, because I think that the hate towards said person is justified and reasonable.

Besides that, based on a definition I'm using (since OT likes definitions) there is no mention of hate (although I had the same impression as you about the word). Based on the definition, I think it relies on whether or not each side's stance (in general; not just what they believe but what role they'd like their views to play as well) is reasonable. If it is reasonable as a whole then the definition doesnt apply because if a stance is reasonable and logical then it cant be characterised as obstinate. If someone would like to stick to the "superiority" part, then every time someone thinks they are right with 100% confidence then they could be called a bigot, which doesnt make sense. So obviously "superiority" doesnt refer to simply thinking you are right.

My point is, there's a lot of interpretation to be made on the definition itself.

My take is that based on how I used the word "stance" earlier, there definitely are people that are against gay-marriage that dont deserve to be called bigots. And those, imo, would be those who simply disagree without wishing to impose their views via laws.

But it does apply imo to the rest who do wish that. And I'm willing to bet, the outrage coming from people who are pro-gay marriage is due to that group, not the other. Unfortunately, maybe sometimes the frustration makes people attack the first anti-gay marriage group as well.

Teenaged

Again, you can be pro traditional marriage with no hatred involved; therefore, no bigotry.

You can also be a pro-gay marriage bigot due to hatred and intolerance of another opinion.

Bigotry can work both ways because it's based purely on hate and not rational.

Did you read past the first line of my post?

Intolerance though doesnt necessarily entail being hateful or irrational, so being intolerant of a view doesnt necessarily equate to being a bigot.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"]Which in turns restricts the freedom of speech and religious expression of someone who wants to say he's anti-gay, but can't because he'll be either verbally or physically attacked for "being a bigot". No one really wins here. thegerg

By not allowing same sex marriage you are infringing upon the religious rights of peoples who's religions do allow same sex marriage.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Both sides are intolerant of the opposing viewpoint...hence both sides are bigots.tenaka2

I dont agree with your circular reasoning on this, have a read of this, the smug part applies a lot in this instance.

http://voices.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-bigot-paradox-11216532.html

COMMENTARY |You've seen it somewhere on the Internet: Someone with a sense of smug saying something along the lines of "you guys know that calling someone a 'bigot' makes you a bigot too, right?"

Umm, not so much.

This currently popular and eternally fallacious concept that intolerance against bigotry is somehow itself a form of bigotry seems to have gained traction, despite its complete lack of sense.

The Bigot Paradox is not stealthy ninja logic, it's simply stupidity, and illustrates an utter lack of understanding of the liberal perspective. We don't dislike racism or any discrimination because we're nice and don't want to hurt people's feelings.

We counter that dogma because we believe justice and equality have no color, no gender and no religion. That's not bigoted; that's the core fabric of the United States. That these concepts are actively opposed in the name of "freedom," well, that's the real paradox of bigotry.

Any view on this LJ?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Not sure what slavery has to do with a modern day belief.

Again, you can be pro traditional marriage with no hatred involved; therefore, no bigotry.

You can also be a pro-gay marriage bigot due to hatred and intolerance of another opinion.

Bigotry can work both ways because it's based purely on hate and not rational.

KC_Hokie

Did you read past the first line of my post?

Intolerance though doesnt necessarily entail being hateful or irrational, so being intolerant of a view doesnt necessarily equate to being a bigot.

Did I say otherwise? Seriously, did you read all of my big post? I doubt you did.

As for the hate element, the definition I use from the Oxford Dictionary doesnt mention or imply hate.

It mentions being obstinate, having a feeling of superiority about your beliefs, being prejudiced.

You keep avoiding to reply to my example because you know that the element of hate makes your definition make no sense.

I'll repeat myself because something tells me you wont go read my post which ought to have read before replying.

"My take is that based on how I used the word "stance" earlier, there definitely are people that are against gay-marriage that dont deserve to be called bigots. And those, imo, would be those who simply disagree without wishing to impose their views via laws.

But it does apply imo to the rest who do wish that. And I'm willing to bet, the outrage coming from people who are pro-gay marriage is due to that group, not the other. Unfortunately, maybe sometimes the frustration makes people attack the first anti-gay marriage group as well."

Even though bigots isnt necessarily a two way street, lets keep in mind that doesnt mean that people who are anti gay marriage "bigots". Being anti black is not the same as being against something that the Bible is against.champion837

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Then I suppose you could call them a bigot.....as for your example...well someone can think that all they want but they should not be allowed to act on it. Children are too young for consent. Period.

LJS9502_basic

If you could call them bigots, then everybody is pretty much a bigot, rendering the term meaningless.

That children are too young to consent is all the more reason that intolerance against such a viewpoint shouldn't be labeled bigotry. A viewpoint like that cannot be met with simple disagreement. It is an unacceptable viewpoint that must be met with a swift and severe rebuke, which neccesitates intolerance.

What I am saying is that the notion that intolerance towards other opinions=bigotry is just way too broad a definition. Under that definition, the only people who are not bigots are babies.

Since when does anybody simply disagree with the viewpoint that adults should be able to have sex with kids? People are repulsed by that idea and the expression of that repulsion is certainly intolerance (and like I said, it's perfectly justified intolerance).

The reason intolerance doesn't come into play as far as our disagreements in music threads is concerned is because music is not a serious issue. However, on more serious issues (such as the issue of children having sex with adults), intolerance most certainly comes into play for the majority of people and I'd guess that you're probably just as intolerant of that idea as anyone else.

Whether that is the definition or not, everybody is most certainly a bigot if you go by such a definition. Even generally tolerant people are intolerant towards certain opinions as it is human nature to be intolerant of certaint hings. Actually, I'd go as far as to say widespread intolerance towards certain opinions is neccesary to keep a society stable.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I dont agree with your circular reasoning on this, have a read of this, the smug part applies a lot in this instance.

http://voices.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-bigot-paradox-11216532.html

COMMENTARY |You've seen it somewhere on the Internet: Someone with a sense of smug saying something along the lines of "you guys know that calling someone a 'bigot' makes you a bigot too, right?"

Umm, not so much.

This currently popular and eternally fallacious concept that intolerance against bigotry is somehow itself a form of bigotry seems to have gained traction, despite its complete lack of sense.

The Bigot Paradox is not stealthy ninja logic, it's simply stupidity, and illustrates an utter lack of understanding of the liberal perspective. We don't dislike racism or any discrimination because we're nice and don't want to hurt people's feelings.

We counter that dogma because we believe justice and equality have no color, no gender and no religion. That's not bigoted; that's the core fabric of the United States. That these concepts are actively opposed in the name of "freedom," well, that's the real paradox of bigotry.

champion837

Any view on this LJ?

I realise that, but religion changes with the times all the time, especially christianity. If christianity changes its view on same sex marrage will all the followers of christianity change there view also?

And if they do, does this mean that these people have stopped thinking for themselves and that all there views are dictated by others?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Where? No where is it mentioned in the Constitution.

KC_Hokie

States give marriage licenses not the Federal government because it's not in the U.S. Constitution.