enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
On the other side of the gay marriage debate....
by opus512
+1 Reply

Something like 30 states already have laws or state constitutional amendments against same sex marriage, and another dozen or so have legislation pending as of late last year.

It only takes 38 states to pass a Constitutional amendment.

Compare that to the whopping four or five states that allow same sex marriage.

Supporters of gay marriage, of which I am one, would do well to not get distracted by the very few successes, compared to the overwhelming losses.

Re: On the other side of the gay marriage debate....
by businessanalyst

Why should the state get involved in marriage? What is their stake? Only the perpetuation of the species. It's not really about the selfish desires about the people involved.

Re: On the other side of the gay marriage debate....
by Neuro

businessanalyst:
Why should the state get involved in marriage? What is their stake? Only the perpetuation of the species. It's not really about the selfish desires about the people involved.

I agree completely. There is already such an enormous shortage of people in the United States. This will only get worse if we allow same sex marriages; obviously such marriages will prevent opposite sex marriages from conceiving children. On the other hand, if we ban same sex marriages all of the homosexuals in our country will give up their ways, marry to the right sex, and make babies.

Re: On the other side of the gay marriage debate....
by HAP
And, hey BA: your post was funny!
Re: 144 civil rights.
by Demosthenes2

That’s how many legal privileges the married are entitled to in my state that those who are gay may not avail themselves of. The state’s stake is marriage is one that they have created by granting rights on the basis of marital status. It’s not like anybody is going to force a Priest or Rabbi to marry a gay couple, but you’re simply not going to be able to say you may not file a return jointly, see each other in the hospital, inherit a lease, or put your loved one on your insurance simply because of sexual orientation while your siblings may.

That seems rather simple. Call it civil unions or what you will, but civil rights must be applied equally.

Re: 144 civil rights.
by gcal1971

I agree with the inital post, the article is awfully smug for a battle that is being lost.

One of the other matters overlooked is "common law" marraiges between hetrosexual couples (i.e. you are considered married if you live together for X amount years. I call it "marriage by default"). As I understand it, in Virginia, our consitutional admendment outlaws them as it strictly defines what a marriage is considered to be.

Re: 144 civil rights.
by NightSwimmer
Trajectory is the key issue here. All of the momentum is now moving toward legalization of gay marriage. Once a critical mass of states changes their law, then the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution will kick in to seal the deal. It doesn't look like there will be any turning back of this tide.
View as RSS news feed in XML