According to the Constitution (not even an amendment to it), all states must honor contracts made in other states. What is property in one state is necessarily property in all other states and territories. It is one state's right to decide whether to grant same-sex marriage licenses, but all states must honor them.

They must honor them, sure, but the people in the state won't exactly like married gays living next to them--if one state allows gay marriage, they basically all have to allow it. If one state allows it, gays in all other states go there to get married and then come back and stay married in their home states. The people who don't like gay marriage have gained nothing (I'm not on their side, I'm just pointing out that they're not stupid and will realize this). That's why they want a federal law against it.

Also, if some states allow it and some don't, couldn't that lead to polarization? Gays and their supporters would become concentrated in those states and bigots would be more concentrated in the states that didn't allow it (as in, "Hey, [state] doesn't have gay marriage, let's move there to get away from all these gays!"). This could lead to sectionalism, entrenchment, and so on and so forth, going down the same path the US took in the first half of the 19th century. (Although I think civil war is unlikely--mainly because the sections aren't really united; it's more of a coastal/inland thing.)

State's rights is good, but I prefer people's rights.

It says that, true; but when did that ever get in the way of a miscegenation law?

I dunno, I am kind of warming to the idea of state's rights, if only to keep the GOP out of the forests and wombs and churches in my state. Screw the red states, let them enjoy their polluted wasteland of a theocracy if that's what they want.

What about the Canadans from Canadia? Didn't British Columbia and Ontario legalize gay marriage first? And then the Prime Minister shortly afterwards had it legalized in the whole country, over the objections of some of the more rural religious provinces in the middle? And the Catholic Church threatened his immortal soul because he happened to be a Catholic? But because this is Canada, no Americans paid attention?

I am consistently amazed by the degree of your understanding of conservative viewpoints.

I am consistently awed by your inability to respond to others without resorting to sarcasm, BB.

Gay marriage has not been legalized in Canada. Judges have said that it should be, but there is a possible out in the constitution, and the issue is still an issue.

What can I say? It's a gift. I enjoy seeing if my opponents will take the bait and become angry.

Wow. I've been enjoying these convserations for the facts, ideas, and sometimes wit they contain and completely missing another level of entertainment. I mean, I know that sometimes just ain't enough to keep a guy like me interested, but I never noticed I could go out and have fun at someone else's expense.

Oh, sure. That's at least a quarter of the fun. And the best part is: if they don't get angry, you'll wind up with an intelligent and insightful discussion. It's a win-win situation. Either you get to see someone struggle pathetically against your argument, or you get to have a nice serious debate.

I keep expecting all of my online debates to be like the politics section of OverClocked Remix's forums where it's harder to get people to bite.

Have you gotten people to bite? I'm not angry, just amused. And Mr. Chopper is more offended at your debate style than your argument. And this whole thing is off-topic. In fact, I don't even remember what thread this is.

(EDIT: A look tells me this thread started out about teens in high school not respecting the freedom of the press. Since then it's floated all around, but the current sidetrack about Bill's comments isn't even about politics, for God's sake.)

Let's try and keep things civil, okay? Bill, it's not nice to use sarcasm. You know that little voice in your head that says "Wow, I know just the way to shred his argument and show off my fantastic wit in one well-turned phrase!"? And you know that little inner censor that stops you from being really trollingly offensive? You should attempt to let the latter curtail the former more often.
Leo, I know his attack was low, but think of it as boxing--a low punch leaves him open for a high attack. Argue the ideas, not the methods, if you can: an uppercut is more effective than a blow to the chest, right?

I regret my earlier comment.

Meh. I think I'm pretty well known for bashing the right in a completely inflamatory and disrespectful manner. Why would I get upset with you for stating the obvious?