Thank you for the links. Blessings upon you! :)

Co-sign. We are all in this together and we are all people. The issue is not a gay v. straight issue. The issue is taking care of people and making sure that all people are treated equally and fairly. It really is a civil rights issue. I am sure that jesus would have loved, and did love, gay people just as much as straight people as we are all people. I really despise the "religious" right. There is a nice warm place in hell for the likes of rambo and her ilk. I am not a bible scholar, but I know alot of it and have read it. I have never seen nor interpreted what I have read to justify what the "religious" right does. I really am at a loss. It really is sad that people are so blind and uncaring and non-religious.

Same here, Jan. And, in the immortal words of MLK, "Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere."

It's a mess if they tamper with what's already occurred.

I mean, it's kind of ridiculous - as if the women who live on the corner or the guys who live behind me or the ladies down the street are in any way detracting from my relationship. It's ludicrous. How can the effort of any two people to work out a way to blend their lives be anything but admirable?

But if they start forcibly divorcing people! Now that threatens my relationship!

Next, they might want to "vote" that people of the same sex can't live together at all! Or what if they said people who were not married could not reside together? I mean, if everything is up for a vote, where would it end?

Emma,
You specify rights outside of a bonded/couple/marriage situation, so that is what I will address.

You also say "human" rights, but under national law there are no "human rights" per se that I know of. There are civil rights, citizen rights, and legal protections. Therefore, I am going to stay within the law rather than addressing "human" rights.

Depending on where you live, you may have legal protections that you would not have if you were LGBT.

These might include:
Employment protections - many places allow refusal to hire or promote, and firing based on being gay or lesbian;

There may be jobs you cannot hold (for example working with children);

Housing protections - many places still allow landlords to refuse to rent to gays and lesbians.

Service protections - businesses can refuse to serve you because you are gay or lesbian.

Protections from infringement into your personal life - Texas for example went to the Supreme Court to fight for the state's right to break into someone's residence if they thought that homosexual activity was occurring inside.

Kissing the person you are with in a public place.

"Cross dressing" - Missouri for example requires that you wear at least three articles of clothing that are specifically for your sex. Generally LGBT folks are targeted.

There may be others, but these are the ones off the top of my head.

I believe that all U.S. "human rights" legislation applies to international issues, and refugee status, but does not apply domestically beyond that.

You ask a good question, Emma. And I know you ask it in good faith.

First of all, I think the term "human rights" comes from the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which you can read here:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

I agree with Rowan's comment above that our Bill of Rights speaks of civil rights - even though the Declaration of Independence speaks of "certain unalienable rights" that are ours by virtue of our humanity. The Declaration speaks of "endowed by our creator" - but I think we can safely assume that means "inherent" to our humanity, thus "human rights". The Declaration of Independence goes on to describe the role of government: "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted..."

Declaration of Independence here:

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

Now, to my mind if government prevents some people from marrying, unless they marry a person of the opposite sex (when for them, that goes "against their nature") - I see that as going to a basic human right. You may not view it that way. And on that, we could differ, or try to have a spirited discussion.

Because the Declaration of Independence also speaks of this: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends..." (that is when govt is not helping people to secure their rights), then it is the duty of people to "alter or abolish" that.

I personally am looking at this in a much larger context than just the United States. I'm looking at it in a world context. As I believe HRC was doing in her remarks in Europe. There are countries, like Nigeria, for example, where people are beaten and killed and imprisoned for homosexuality, and where the religious authorities call for laws to bolster their religious proscriptions against homosexuality. I feel pretty certain, that no matter your leanings or views of homosexuality, that you would not agree it should be outlawed or punished by the govt - or that the govt should permit beatings and murders of homosexuals. Nigeria, of course, is not the only country where this happens.

Coming back more specifically to your question. To my mind this goes back to the claims of Ken Starr that civil rights are something we can vote up or down. That minorities can be prey to such civil action against them. That what a court has determined as a "right" can be struck down by a plebiscite. Which is what happened in California.

If you take this to its logical conclusion that means, and Ken Starr argued that in front of the California Supreme Court, that any civil right (human right - deriving from our common humanity) can be voted up or down. Go and read his comments. That's what he said! (He realizes a court could strike that down, but he's literally advocating that people can "vote" to deny rights to other people.)

Think of the issue that some people who married - legally - could be forced to divorce by the state. My question is: If they can force others to divorce, based on sexual preference, where does it end? Will they force me to divorce because I hold certain religious or political views? Because I have a different eye color than Mr. TheraP? That may sound far-fetched. But to me it bears on this issue.

If some cannot marry - or have the right to a legal document, stating their "union" - that precludes all sorts of other civil rights. It affects taxes and inheritance and whether you are called a "parent" or can visit a sick child or your beloved (if they are in hospital). Things like that.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm not an expert in history or government. Or theology. But I am a person. I believe I am no better than any other person. I believe I have no more rights than another person. If I, by a an accident of birth, was attracted to a man, whom I was free to marry, how can I deny to another the right to marry the one they love?

I think I'll stop there. I may not have answered your question. I realize Rowan (above) provided his answer. Others may have other answers. But I cannot but advocate that all adults have the right to "legal union" with the adult of their choice. Whether that is called marriage or not, I'm not wedded to a term. And personally I am troubled that the state delegates state authority to religious leaders - who can, and do, at times block people from marrying if they want to remain in that church or sect. Or they can set up hurdles people must jump in order to do so. (I realize that's another matter - but I simply point out that religion, to my mind, has gotten mixed up in a state function.)