my sufferin is worser than your sufferin.

Better known as 'here we go again'.

Loving v. Virginia.

Your omission of this legal precedent suggests you are unfamiliar with the most basic context of this debate.

You also show a disturbing ignorance of the history of the institution of marriage.  It was originally an agreement between two men whereby the putative husband agreed with the putative bride's father that he would support the putative bride in exchange for her sexual availability and domestic labor.  Hence dowries and brideprices.  As social mores about gender equality evolved, marriage was re-cast as a partnership of equals.  Allowing gays and lesbians to marry is just the logical extension of that shift in understanding of the meaning of marriage.

I suggest you find out a little more about the institution you are purporting to defend.

Gays are fully accepted?  I find it hard to believe that you could make a statement like that.  Perhaps in West Hollywood, San Francisco, and a few other communities across the U.S. However, certainly not in most of the country.

In much of the country, gays can be legally fired just for their sexuality, and many are.  They are also forbidden to adopt children in many places.  Those who wish to serve in the U.S. military are forced to try to keep their sexuality completely under wraps.  In much of the country, gays would have difficulty making decisions about their life partners who were hospitalized, adopting and raising the children of their life partners (if their life partner was to die), etc.

Plus, they have to face taunting, threats of violence (and, in many cases, violent attacks), and lack of social acceptance, from school age all the way on.

Actually, I'm glad you raised the issue of acceptance, because that is precisely the issue with marriage.  Yes, as many people have pointed out, domestic partners in California get the same benefits as married people do (though, importantly, not the federal benefits, only those recognized by the state). Extending marriage rights to gays in California will not instantly guarantee them those federal benefits and rights.  But it will make a powerful statement that gays and lesbians are accepted in our society, with the same rights to have their loving relationships recognized as equally legitimate by the state and society as those relationships of others.  THAT is why the religious right finds gay marriage so offensive, and THAT is also why gay marriage is so important to achieve.

one recommend?

Hierarchies of oppression accomplish nothing other than to divide and conquer oppressed identity groups - exactly what the oppressors hope for.

And btw - I'll happily take Coretta Scott King, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela and the California NAACP as my moral compass -

You? Not so much.

Like oh so many posters before you, you assert that "society as a whole does not benefit" from allowing gay marriage. And because you believe your assertion, you think you are arguing from a position of strength.

But you're not. American society as a whole does benefit from gay marriage. Certainly the same-sex couples benefit from a recognition of their marriage. [Note too that term -- it is a recognition of my marriage that I seek; I am already married in the eyes of God, my church, and my family. It's not a religious argument.]

The benefits government gives to married couples are enormous -- it's one reason why married couples are routinely found to live longer, healthier lives. A society where more people have the advantage of such benefits is clearly better off than one that arbitrarily limits those benefits. And governmental recognition of those marriages has in fact improved the societal structures where it has been achieved: Massachusetts has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country, and in general:

All these scandinavian countries giving marriage equality are, when compared to the US, better educated (11). On average, they live longer (13), have happier lives (14), and produce more per capita (12). In the realm of family, they have far fewer teenage pregnancies per capita (15), their children spend more time with both of their parents  (9), and their marriages are stronger (4).

I've left the numbers in the quote which are footnote references from the entire article, which is quite well researched. I suggest you might want to read it to understand why your assertions and assumptions are so off-base.

It's odd, because I might have agreed with part of your premise: that being denied recognition of marriage does not necessarily equate with racial inequality. It doesn't necessarily mean we have to choose one or the other either. But then you fell into the usual trap of saying gay marriage is bad for society by definition without in fact offering any proof of your position. Which, of course, isn't surprising...it's an indefensible position.

[Apologies to the rest of you for feeding the troll...]

know that you ripped off his screed without attribution?  Stealing makes Baby Jesus cry hot salty tears.

Let's introduce a few facts into graz's moralistic, non-argument.

1.  Prop 8 addresses the CIVIL institution of marriage, not the religious, which happen to have the same name ("marriage") but are not the same thing.
   
2.  As such, it concerns CIVIL rights, by definition.
   
3.  Therefore, by definition (see 1 and 2 above), no allowing gay people to marriage deprives them of a CIVIL right.

So what are graz's spurious justifications for denial of CIVIL rights to gay people:

1.  No benefit to society:  arguable, but irrelevant, since legal equality (a natural rights principle in the Constitution) is not dependent on perceived direct social benefit.  
   
2.  Historical notion of the definition of marriage.  Well, historically (legally and biblically) slavery was considered acceptable.  So, unless you want to put yourself on the side of slavery, this logic works no better.

This disgusting diary is, however, important.  It reminds us progressives that, even in our midst, sit those so misinformed and trapped in standard bigoted tropes that they cannot see clear CIVIL rights issues.  My friends, here at MYDD, we clearly have work to do.

Well, at least this diary and some of the comments on it soundly disprove the diarist's argument (stolen though it may be) that "gays are fully accepted."  

These are his own words...

"The good neighbor looks beyond the external accidents and discerns those inner qualities that make all men human and, therefore, brothers."

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

"All men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality."

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

"We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools."

"All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem."