SpyMoose
First point -- As far as letting sleeping dogs lie, poor choice of words there perhaps...what I was referring to is that social issues should not be solved by the government but by individual choice if at all possible. If the gays felt that they were being mistreated, then of course they had every right to stand up and say so. But unfortunately, when the government does get involved in sorting out a social issue as legal or illegal, a system is put in place that usually would not be as good as if people were allowed to make their own decisions (hence, let sleeping dogs lie). I don't, and never have approved of oppression, but involving the government is not always the best way to end it.
Before you get your dander up about this always being a government issue, however, I want you to know that I agree completely with what you said about marriage rights and benefits offered to couples being the start of the problem -- that contributed (and still contributes greatly) to turning this into a government issue instead of a social one, and I had not considered that before I wrote my post. Had there been no other benefit (originally) to being married heterosexually rather than homosexually other than the avoidance of negative social stigma (I'm speaking historically here -- homosexuality is much more accepted today than it once was), the government would likely never have become involved and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Next point -- you are quite wrong about the issue of slavery being a majority-decided, positive issue -- on both sides of the fence, the issue was constantly debated, although it is true that IN GENERAL the South thought it was positive and the North thought it was negative (note the caps on IN GENERAL -- we both know it wasn't quite that clear-cut). And as far as the reason why there was a bloody war, it was because the sides WERE so divided on what to do about the issue. The long post-war reconstruction was also due in a large part to that same fact.
Last point -- obviously the reason why whether a vote should be put for allowing other cases of marriage has never been debated before was that marriage was always traditionally defined as the union between a man and a woman -- slaves, different races, and any other votes that could have been taken up were not because they ALWAYS were recognized as falling into that category (except the Jim Crow laws, but those were never really supposed to be allowed in the first place). The point is that no one ever thought to challenge THAT issue before, and now that they are, we have the idea of a vote; despite your beliefs on the issue, you must agree that the reason why other races were automatically allowed to marry was because they never challenged the traditional one man-one woman ideal of marriage.
There is other good evidence for this idea -- the only people in the US who have ever challenged the definition of marriage being one man-one woman were the Mormons with polygamy; they were also met with opposition, resistance and the idea of a vote (which they ended up losing, by the way).
As to the rest of your post and my reply about what to do on the issue, I'll be honest -- I've written and rewritten my answer but have come to the conclusion that I've got to give this issue some more thought.
I normally don't back down like that, but what really struck me is what you said about marriage being a right. I keep asking myself the same question you put to me: should a vote really decide this issue? Does the vote make it right? Part of me feels it would be the fairest way to do so -- at least everyone would have their say. But then part of me agrees with you -- marriage is a right, not an opinion, and should not be voted on. But then part of me says, didn't we have to vote and ratify the Bill of Rights? Those rights in there are rights too but they still had to be voted on. But then of course, marriage isn't actually in the Bill of Rights as it was always assumed to be a natural right of man. But then of course, the right to marriage was always defined as the union between a man and a woman and didn't need a vote...
Anyway, you see why I need to give the matter some more thought. I've got Tavia's "but on the other hand..." problem right now, and I'd rather work out the argument for myself before I involve any one else in it.
So...
Rather than get into a discussion with you about the differences/similarities between homosexual couples and traditional couples (that path is more than too well-tread, and always boils down to the same points having to do a great deal with personal beliefs) or to just say that "all marriage privileges should be disallowed so everyone is equal" which I see as kind of a cop-out, no-win choice for anyone, I'm going to think the matter over some more and then get back to you when I've figured out where I stand.
Thanks for your comments, and if you think there's a way to improve my posting style (or ideas), I won't be offended if you let me know!
P.S. Mystech, I know that a 50-state direct vote is without precedent and would be difficult to actually accomplish in America, but it still would be the best way to determine the will of the majority. And compared to some of the ideas I've seen (a.k.a. nuke the gays!), it isn't really all that absurd of an idea (although it might be absurd to suggest that America could actually do it given our traditionalist government). The point is, even though it hasn't been tried before, it probably would work the best for determining majority and giving everyone a feeling of having had their say.
Which, since just about everyone is saying SOMETHING about this issue, is a very important thing to do...