"Dmitri" and the anonymous source
After numerous incidents of trolling "Dmitri" was banned from Sony Online Entertainment's Star Wars Galaxies. During an in-game commitment ceremony of lesbian avatars "Dmitri" called them "anti-Patriotic," "scum of society," and "bunch of liberal, hippie, homo lovin' scum." In 2004 he also wrote, "No negros can walk this street by order of the furher [sic]" and "We're dedicated to sending jedi to the gas chamber! Send a tell!" There is a laundry list of other incidents but "Dmitri" blames his banning on SOE having, "No room for individuals to have more conservative, traditional leanings ... that's unacceptable."
Interestingly enough, for a man that believes so strongly in his conservative ideals, "Dmitri" requested to stay anonymous in a story regarding political protesting within video games for the November issue of Computer Games magazine. Computer Games magazine obliged him and Lara Crigger wrote the article A Tale of Two Protests. The piece examines the right-leaning "Dmitri" and the liberal Joseph DeLappe, who writes the names of dead soldiers within America's Army as part of his "Dead in Iraq" project.
Anonymous sources hold a role in journalism, but that role is still debated in journalism schools across the country. Ideally they should never be quoted and only used to connect the dots of a story until the journalist can find a source willing to go on the record.
Features Editor of Computer Games magazine Cindy Yans says, "Sometimes they have a good point, but don't want to give their name. I'm still kinda on the fence about it."
Should "Dmitri" have ever been quoted in the first place? When journalists publish political ideas without a name to stand behind them, does this add fuel to the reasons games journalism is bogus?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
SquirrelPhister @ Oct 7th 2006 7:27PM
FIRST!
oh wait, wrong website
udx @ Oct 7th 2006 7:30PM
I think I might have heard something similar to him on the Malfurion server on World of Warcraft. While I was power leveling in the Badlands, I noticed an announcement by someone mentioning a guild that goes against Night Elves and females.
Not Impressed (Dmitri) @ Oct 7th 2006 7:42PM
Ownage!!!!11!11one. My REAL name is Dmitri. Same spelling TOO!
O schnap!
Luckily I am not as much of an asshole as this guy seems to be. As I have never played SWG, and I quit AA about a year ago.
MosquitoControl @ Oct 7th 2006 7:52PM
The problem isn't that he doesn't give his name, it's that they picked a moron for "conservative" ideals.
He's more likely than not either "special" or joking, trying to get a rise.
They couldn't have found someone chemically balanced? Now they'll just get a bunch of people whining about conservatives, as if this guy is the majority.
MED @ Oct 7th 2006 7:53PM
crazy Nazi
Probot @ Oct 7th 2006 7:54PM
"Should 'Dmitri' have ever been quoted in the first place? When journalists publish political ideas without a name to stand behind them, does this add fuel to the reasons games journalism is bogus?"
There's no way to answer these questions without reading the article. There's no context for how the guy was quoted. I don't know what the focus of the article was.
bm @ Oct 7th 2006 7:56PM
It always cracks me up how retards go berserk on message boards and/or online games and then when they get kicked the fuck out they act as if they're still in some kind of country with a first amendment or whatever.
Get a clue, dumbshits. You're on somebody else's server.
Odec @ Oct 7th 2006 7:57PM
He played the character Strell (previously Strel, but that character was banned) on the Sunrunner server of SWG. He was a known credit seller and all around asshole.
Azerael @ Oct 7th 2006 8:00PM
It's people like that who're the scum of society, not "homos" or "negros".
minus_273 @ Oct 7th 2006 8:06PM
The piece examines the right-leaning "Dmitri" and the liberal Joseph DeLappe, who writes the names of dead soldiers within America's Army as part of his "Dead in Iraq" project."
nice one, now they can pick steven colbert too! Nothing says liberal bias like the use of a straw man.
foobob @ Oct 7th 2006 8:07PM
this is why i don't like online RPGs. You're in the middle of your personal quest to save the world, surrounded by elves, orcs, dragons or whatever and then comes some loser from the real world and completely ruins the all-so-important suspension of disbelief of such games.
single-player world saving fun for me, please!
Conbus @ Oct 7th 2006 8:39PM
I totally agree with bm and Azerael, those types of people are simply annoying and by not giving his name he shows he has absolutely no balls. People say whatever they want and insult whoever they want when they are anonymous.
Dmitri shouldn't of even been quoted. He should of been banned and forever ignored. I honestly don't think that an ignorant bigot's opinion matters anyway.
bm @ Oct 7th 2006 8:48PM
"while free speech is a protected right in the this country, hate speech is not."
Well that's where you hit a snag, the internet is not a country. When you write something on it, unless you have your own website you're writing it onto somebody else's space. Like being a guest in someone else's house and then calling him a bitch. Or sitting in a fancy restaurant and suddenly standing up exclaiming "Heil Hitler" at the top of your lungs accompanied by the appropriate gesture. Or screaming something about the size of your manhood (if you're looking for an example less like "hate speech").
Free speech or no free speech, you're going to get your ass kicked out the door.
samfish @ Oct 7th 2006 9:03PM
Like Mike Malloy (used :( ) to say...Have I mentioned yet tonight how much I HATE these people?!"
Damn right wingers...
bm @ Oct 7th 2006 9:49PM
"A true conservative would only care if the game forced them to attend."
Oh, OH, right, so that must be why there is so much bitching and moaning about gay marriage, because in real life you DO have to attend.
Probot @ Oct 7th 2006 10:06PM
"Dmitri is not a conservative, he is a Nazi. Nazis were SOCIALISTS, which is a left leaning philosophy."
National Socialism (Nazism) is not the same as socialism. It is in fact facism, though facism doesn't have a clear definition. And Nazism isn't "leaning" on anything; it is the extreme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
"This is not journalism, it is propaganda. Computer Games magazine will never get my $$$ ever again."
If the article is written how this post implies, then I could agree with you. However, until I actually read the article that this post is referring to, I wouldn't make any judgements about it.
I can read this post though, and as it reads, it makes these two people seem as if they are equals, and they certainly are not.
sockatume @ Oct 7th 2006 10:17PM
This is interesting. One one hand, you're expected to be as nice as possible to other people in the game, according to the ToS. On the other hand, who says there weren't loudmouthed right-wing assholes a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away?
MasterDePong @ Oct 7th 2006 10:27PM
"Oh, OH, right, so that must be why there is so much bitching and moaning about gay marriage, because in real life you DO have to attend."
In real life gay people want the government to sanction their marriage as being equal to heterosexual marriage. This changes what it means to be married, which is a way of forcing us all to be a part of their lifestyle.
If gay marriage is legal it would need to be taught in school to my children. My employer would need to provide benefits to gay couples.
Since none of these effects would occur in a video game world, I used the analogy of forcing everybody to attend as a way of making my point. It was probably not a good way of explaining what I meant.
Be gay if you want, I have no problem with that. Just don't force me to accept it as equal to heterosexuality.
And Nazis != American Conservatives. Only a moron would believe that.
CB
Jeremy Park @ Oct 7th 2006 10:51PM
Oh good god. My FFXI name is Dmitri (same spellin') I hope I don't get any guff from others players.
thomas_h @ Oct 7th 2006 10:54PM
maybe all that cursing and racism was because he was so frustrated over how bad SWG is.
bm @ Oct 7th 2006 11:11PM
@MasterDePong:
I guess if you look at it that way, it would be fair for me to say that I am equally forced to accept YOUR right wing nonsense in my children's schools and in my legal system. I don't want to tolerate that either but I don't really have a choice now do I.
AssemblyLineHuman @ Oct 7th 2006 11:24PM
"Be gay if you want, I have no problem with that. Just don't force me to accept it as equal to heterosexuality."
Did you just admit that you're consciously aware that you are a proponent of inequality?
Chris Lawton @ Oct 7th 2006 11:31PM
I remember this debate from my college classes. Not the whole "are Nazi's conservative or liberal" debate, the one about anonymous sources. We spent almost a whole class period discussing it, and we never really came to a conclusion.
On one hand, you have a credibility issue...do you lose credibility, or fairness, by not having one of your sides represented to the fullest extent?
But, at the same time, not using something, because you don't want to use an anonymous source can be detrimental to your job.
In the town, in which I work, we had this huge debate about random student drug testing for students in extra-curricular activities. The school board wanted to do it, the parents thought it was infringing on their children's privacy.
I covered all of the meetings for the radio station I work at. One time, a woman got up to talk and related a story about her child who got hooked on meth. She had no idea her child was hooked. Eventually, she almost died from the stuff. This woman used this as her case for supporting random student drug testing. She says she felt that if testing was in place, she might have found out about her child's use much earlier.
Now, all of this was really, really good. It really drove a good point home, and, on top of that, it was really hard to find an actuality from someone who supported the proposal and wasn't on the school board. However, she asked the media to keep her name out of it. She wanted to remain anonymous, because most of the district didn't know that her child was an addict.
Now, I had everything she said on tape, and she did say it in a public forum, so, legally, I could have used it all. But, at the same time, I was risking ruining someone's life, who was already having a hard time kicking a habit.
Of course, if I didn't use the sound, then the quality of the story would go down severely. I would end up writing a lackluster story about an exciting meeting.
It was a horrible situation to be in, and I hope I never have to face a decision like that again.
In my job, we strive to be the best we can be, because if we aren't, we stay in smalltowns, making next to nothing, working 65 hours, because you're the only reporter. At the same time, every job we apply for, has forty other journalists applying for that job, and they probably used the lady's name.
I ended up not using the sound bite at all, and just referring to her as a "Concerned parent." I was able to get the majority of what she said across by paraphrasing, but the story was definitely missing that final punch.
Oh well, at least politicians are always willing to talk to me.
MasterDePong @ Oct 7th 2006 11:50PM
"Did you just admit that you're consciously aware that you are a proponent of inequality?"
In regards to marriage, yes. I believe that plural marriages, gay marriages, etc. are less beneficial to society as a whole than traditional marriage. So based on that reasoning, not all marriages are created equal.
So are you saying that ALL behavior should be treated equally, and to think otherwise is somehow wrong?
Chris
MasterDePong @ Oct 8th 2006 12:03AM
"I guess if you look at it that way, it would be fair for me to say that I am equally forced to accept YOUR right wing nonsense in my children's schools and in my legal system."
Exactly. As a conservative I want to maintain the status quo. As a liberal you want to change it.
But it's important to note that you do NOT have to put up with Dmitri's point of view in your schools and legal system, because Dmitri is NOT a conservative. But he seems to be represented as one in the Computer Games article.
CB
MasterDePong @ Oct 8th 2006 12:04AM
Dmitri is not a conservative, he is a Nazi. Nazis were SOCIALISTS, which is a left leaning philosophy. A true conservative would not care about Lesbians having a wedding inside a stupid video game. A true conservative would only care if the game forced them to attend.
The offensive part of this article is that they use a freak as a way to smear conservatives. This is not journalism, it is propaganda. Computer Games magazine will never get my $$$ ever again.
CB
MasterDePong @ Oct 8th 2006 12:05AM
#27 is a repeat. I have no idea how that happened, but it was not intended.
cheese @ Oct 8th 2006 12:10AM
Dmitri is an ass and is not conservative by any means. He doesn't deserve any label except for "biggot" and "racist" and I resent anybody, including himself, referring to him as right leaning or conservative. That's like saying all left leaning democrats are Stalinist, Marxist or terrorist apologists.
bm @ Oct 8th 2006 12:45AM
"Exactly. As a conservative I want to maintain the status quo. As a liberal you want to change it."
An accurate statement, except we're talking about which is right, not which one is currently established.
I (and many others) don't want my kids to be taught that some people don't have the rights that others do because of who they are, just like I wouldn't want them to be taught that they're worth less because of what they look like. Just because this is the status quo right now doesn't make it any less nonsensical.
"So are you saying that ALL behavior should be treated equally, and to think otherwise is somehow wrong?"
You see, that's where you're wrong, it's not "behaviour". By that reasoning heterosexuality is equally some sort of "behaviour". It's not of course, it's what one is born with. I remember this program I saw once where a father asked his daughter how she knew she was gay. And she answered "dad, how do you know you're hetero?" He didn't have an answer of course. Do you have one?
But regardless, by that statement it seems as if you're equating gays to murderers and rapists. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised.
As for this:
"But it's important to note that you do NOT have to put up with Dmitri's point of view in your schools and legal system, because Dmitri is NOT a conservative. But he seems to be represented as one in the Computer Games article."
I already said what I thought about Dmitri in an earlier post and that's all I have to say about it. Doesn't have anything to do with the above.
DeeKay @ Oct 8th 2006 1:05AM
I find it irritating when people like "Dimitri" complain of getting kicked off because they think they can say what they want because of the 1st Amendment on an MMORPG or whatever game. What they don't realize is that they gave up some of those rights when they clicked on "I Agree" from the EULA when they installed or started to play the game.
MasterDePong @ Oct 8th 2006 1:37AM
@bm (#31)
Whether or not sexual preference is a choice or inborn is a matter of opinion, not scientific fact. I don't know myself, but I do know that people choose to have sex. It is not like breathing, which is done involuntarily. So yes, it is a behavior.
This is not the point of this discussion. The point I was making is that Dmitri is not a conservative, as a conservative would not act the way he did.
"But regardless, by that statement it seems as if you're equating gays to murderers and rapists. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised."
Oh pahleeze (rolls eyes). Is this your idea of intellectual discourse? Nowhere in my post did I equate gays to murderers and rapists. Nice bit of slander.
CB
Sol @ Oct 8th 2006 2:12AM
I am no historian but wasn't Fascism a reaction to Socialism in Germany after WW1? The Nazi party was as much about fear of Zionism as it was about resisting Communism. How Republican party supporters can accuse Leftists of Fascism, I don't know. Perhaps Fascism means something different in America than it does in the rest of the world.
geo @ Oct 8th 2006 5:17AM
To all those saying Dmitri is "NOT A CONSERVATIVE" GET REAL! He votes Rebublican, voted for Bush, just like you. These folks are part of your party, you can't distance yourself from it. Do you even follow what some of your Republican congress people say?
And MasterDePong. You come offf just like your average right wing nutjob blowhard. Your Status quo sucks!
Chris Lawton @ Oct 8th 2006 7:01AM
Keep in mind that conservative =/= republican.
LaughingTarget @ Oct 8th 2006 9:18AM
This guy isn't conservative, he is further right, called, which is called "reactionary" on the political spectrum.
cheese @ Oct 8th 2006 9:32AM
geo, I'm sorry but you have no clue about what is conservative or liberal for that matter. Dmitri may be extreme right wing fascist, but a conservative he is not. The Republican party does not espouse fringe ideas like the Democrat party has done in the past 6 years of the "anyone but Bush" and "hate Bush" era. It is a simple reaction of escalation to what happened to Bill Clinton, I understand, which I did not condone the focus he got for his discrepancies. While the focus was on his lack of veracity, it should have been on his performance in office, which was decidedly laissez-faire.
And geo, don't pretend like racism and homophobia are staples of any one party. Racism and homophobia are present everywhere, and "your" party practice it all the time by trying to segregate everyone into "groups" to which you focus on, promising "extra" civil rights to them which are already granted under the Constitution, and getting votes in return.
buckshot @ Oct 8th 2006 9:52AM
How old is this? No one has played SWG since NGE last November.
Lara Crigger @ Oct 8th 2006 10:21AM
It's a very interesting question you bring up, Alex. Does using anonymous sources hurt the integrity and authority with which a reporter writes? What if a necessary source to your article refuses to give his identity? There really aren't any clear-cut answers, and like Cindy said above, many of us are on the fence about it.
I had my reasons for honoring Dmitri's request to remain relatively anonymous. And of course, I encourage everyone to read the article I wrote and judge for themselves whether or not it was the appropriate choice or if it impacted the integrity of the piece.
Oh, one last thing: I *love* that pic you chose. Awesome stuff.
MasterDePong @ Oct 8th 2006 12:21PM
@geo (#35):
I'm a blowhard? You're projecting.
@cheese (#38):
Excellent point. You hit the nail right on the head. Conservatives FTW!
CB
MosquitoControl @ Oct 8th 2006 1:22PM
Geo, yes, just like members of the Animal Liberation Front are members of your party, as they burn down animal testing clinics. Each side has their morons.
However, conservative morons tend to be people like MasterDePong, who are against homosexuality having equal rights yet are unable to formulate an opinion as to why other than "I don't like it."
I mean, less beneficial for society? How idiotic is that? What, all the lawsuits over spousal rights when a gay man dies and his estate goes to distant relatives instead of the man he spent the better years of his life with are better for society? What, all the lawsuits when a gay woman is in a coma without a living will and her sister is allowed to make the decisions of her life rather than her spouse, this is good for society?
Or maybe you just think marriage should be about reproduction, and since gay people can't there's less benefit. Hey, let's disallow marriage over the age of 40, then. If you're a single woman, divorced woman or widowed woman over 40 you can't conceive and therefore you aren't allowed to marry!
See how asinine your opinion is? Hey, we shouldn't force you to think homosexual relationships are equal, but how come you're allowed to force others to treat them as not equal?
Grow up. Gay relationships happen, and they're every bit as loving as straight ones. Let's give them the taxation and financial benefits we give straight couples. Is there really ANY way you can dispute this as a good thing?
dan @ Oct 8th 2006 1:32PM
Dimitri realy isn't an anonymous source. The interview was with him about his own views and actions, which were originaly expressed anonymously. He's not a guy in the shadows of a parking garage, more like a guy with a rifle and a mask on cheap video.
/em contributes 2 copper
david smith @ Oct 8th 2006 1:45PM
Anonymity protects ( sometimes necessarily ) the writer from reprisals from those whos'opinons and interests they oppose. When it extends to unpopular opinions ( like this completely ridiculous bigot ) I think while there is a greater potential for repriasal should they come forth their credibility is significantly diminished by their hiding behind a screenname. the person who is doing the project iraq work is in my opinion, a vandal and I would *hate* having his personal mission rain on my parade while I'm trying to enjoy some escapist fun. But what I want doesnt matter; it's what the community will tolerate that does. If you have a community that is willing to tolerate either of these folks than cool. If they want to boot them, then fine. The community within a game needs to act like a real-world community and decide what is right for them, and then act on it.
MasterDePong @ Oct 8th 2006 2:16PM
@MosquitoControl (#42):
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said gay marriage shouldn't be banned simply because I "don't like it". I said it would be less beneficial to society. You dismiss this argument, yet it is a valid opinion, even if it is different than yours.
I have no problem with homosexuality in general. Whatever makes you happy is fine with me. I just don't want state sanctioned alternative marriage arrangements. I believe it would diminish what it means to be married, then less people would get married, and society would be hurt as a result.
Also, there are laws that allow you to designate your partner as your medical proxy, so that argument doesn't hold up. You can also choose to leave your estate to anybody you want to (except for the big chunk the government will take), so that argument is also invalid.
Lastly, in your post you call me "idiotic", my opinions "assanine", and you tell me to "grow up". That is sooo uncool. You should be able to handle opinions different than yours without resorting to name calling. I respect your opinion, you should respect mine.
CB
Solon @ Oct 8th 2006 3:26PM
@MasterDePong #45
Actually, you are wrong about a lot of things, and this post of yours just clinches it. See, most states, in fact ALL of them prefer to take the word of "Next of Kin" over ANYONE ELSE.
The ONLY way a non-blood related person can become next of kin in any aspect of life(making health decisions, inhereting wealth, etc.), is to either get married, or through adoption.
Now, there is one legal gray area, that is called "Rights of Attorney". This is the most practical way that Gays in relationships can make legal decisions about each other without marriage. Actually, ANYONE can have rights of attorney over anyone else, with permission of course.
However, this isn't a very popular route, for a few reasons, the first being that it can take a LONG time to actually get a right of attorney over your significant other. Also, at any time when a crisis occurs, any blood relatives can challenge that right of attorney, and, more often than not, prevail, especially when it comes to medical decisions and inheretance.
As far as your argument against gay marriage, how meaningful is marriage ALREADY if over half of marriages end in divorce?
If this isn't about bigotry, but about the "Sanctity of Marriage", then let's ban divorce entirely.
By the way, why the fuck should anyone respect bigotry, give me a reason.
MosquitoControl @ Oct 8th 2006 4:01PM
MasterDePong, are you aware that the majority of Americans die without wills?
Why should the government give them a safety net from stupidity and not homosexuals?
You've still yet to give a valid reason, other than not liking it. Not a single one.
Let's keep clogging up courts with these situations instead of making a solution!
MasterDePong @ Oct 8th 2006 4:21PM
@Solon #46:
Bigotry: (from Dictionary.com)
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
I'm sorry, who is the bigot?
I have clearly stated I respect opinions other than my own. You clearly do NOT respect my opinion, therefore you are the bigot.
And if the majority of Americans one day decide that homosexual marriage should be state sancitioned, then I'll accept that.
I doubt it will happen in my lifetime though, since nearly ALL Senators and Congressman oppose it (including Democrats).
@MosquitoControl #47:
"You've still yet to give a valid reason, other than not liking it. Not a single one."
Well, I have given reasons other than "not liking it". So now you change your criteria to "valid" reasons. Since YOU decide what is "valid", it is impossible for me to successfully argue my point. I love your logic (or lack thereof).
CB
MosquitoControl @ Oct 8th 2006 5:18PM
". I believe it would diminish what it means to be married, then less people would get married, and society would be hurt as a result."
That right there is the main reason I feel you're asinine.
There is no way you can defend less marriages being a negative for society without admitting that there are major benefits to marriage that homosexuals are being deprived from, for no reason.
Nor is there any way for you to be able to explain why allowing two people in love of any gender to get married "diminishes" marriage. What diminishes marriage is the massive divorce rate. What diminshes marriage is all the premarital sex. Maybe we should outlaw divorces and premarital sex, then, no?
Two people being in love getting married doesn't diminish marriages. In fact, by telling two people in love that it's not only ok to not be married yet live a lifetime together, but government enforced, cheapens marriage.
You have no legal standpoint. Everything you are discussing is just your feelings, therefore you have nothing to go on other than not liking it.
Take a legal standpoint and you see you have no ground to stand on. None.
MasterDePong @ Oct 8th 2006 6:05PM
@Mosquito Control #49:
By your reasoning, the state should sanction all possible forms of marriage.
What about plural marriages? Adults marrying children? You marrying a Mosquito?
I think it'd be great if we lived in a world where everybody could do exactly as they please, and the government sanctioned it. However, that is not realistic.
For the record, I do not dislike gays or the idea of them marrying, I just don't think it's in the best interests of society at this time.
Consider this my final statement on this subject, as I am now officially bored with this thread.
I appreciate everybody's participation in this discussion, it was very interesting.
CB
Moogle @ Oct 8th 2006 9:01PM
MasterDePong, thanks for being rational and calm despite all the knee-jerk bashing going on here.
I do understand where you're coming from but would like to provide a counter-arguemnt - Gay couples are more likely to adopt, thus both providing the same societal advantages as a heterosexual marriage, and easing the burden on charitable organizations. (I'll admit I don't have statistics on adoption rates, but the advantage is most certainly present)
On the whole, the most rational opinion on the matter is one I heard from an ultra-conservative friend - The government should not recognize ANY marriage. It should provide any benefits for civil unions, and leave the matter of marriage up to churches and the like.
----------
To the rest, I'd like to ask that you take the arguments of others at face value and stop assuming biases in them, no matter how much you disbelieve that someone can be against gay marriage without hating homosexuals. Maybe you're right, but you're not going to get anywhere by attacking the person instead of their arguments.
If you said something worthwhile, adding "and you're an idiot" on the end isn't helping you sound any better than your average hate-monger.
Solon @ Oct 8th 2006 10:58PM
@ Master DePong, I don't respect your opinion because, unlike my opinion, yours actually helps restrict the rights of citizens to have the same protections as everyone else.
Now, onto demolishing EVERY SINGLE argument I have EVER heards against gay marriage.
First things first, Marriage isn't an immutable institution. Some of the first marriage records were property transfers only, usually involving the property(a girl, usually pre-pubescent), and was a contract between her father and the much older than her husband.
This was true for most of the major civilizations in the world, for THOUSANDS of years, and many times, rich men were able to acquire multiple wives in this manner. This is still practiced in some areas of the world today as well, none of those areas are known for stellar human rights records BTW.
In fact, the modern notion of "Marriage for love" is actually quite recent, usually can be pinned to about the birth of the Renaissance in western nations. For practical reasons, Polygamy fell out of favor some years before.
Now, a few things, first, it wasn't until Victorian times that this notion of Marriage for love became POPULAR, mostly because of one marriage for love, that of Albert and Victoria.
Even then, women were, in most societies, still considered, the property of their husbands. It wasn't until the Women's Liberation and Rights movements of the 19th century that this began to change.
Now, fast forward two a few other changes in Marriage since then, nowadays, in most industrialized nations, Marriage contracts are between two people of sound mind and able to consent, so there goes your arguments of marrying the family dog or kids.
Gay Marriage doesn't change this at all.
Now, here is another matter in which marriage has changed, because of a court action no less, in the United States. Loving vs. Virginia in 1967 overturned anti-Miscegenation laws nationwide. These laws made it a felony for two people of different races to marry. The decision was stated thusly:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."
Now, I agree with this decision wholeheartedly, only I would extend it to "sexual classifications" as well. Oh, and by the way, just before you think of it, it wasn't until at least 1990 before interracial marriage actually attained 50% approval in this country.
Should civil rights, such as marriage, be left up to the voting populace in its entirety? Really, plenty of unpopular decisions were made in the past that, in hindsight, were considered good for the nation as a whole.
The fact of the matter is this, you don't like Homosexuals to enjoy the same rights as Heterosexuals, the biggest hallmark of a bigot.