"In Massachusetts, same-sex couples have been able to marry since 2004, and more than 10,000 such couples have done so. "

Only 10,000 in five years? Weren't there only a thousand or so in San Francisco in 2008 when same-sex marriage was legal for five months ? All of that fuss over same-sex marriage and so few bother? I bet quite a few of those were for immigration purposes. Given all of the press coverage on this issue, you'd think that there was a penned-up demand for same-sex marriage.

Nope, its actually quite rare. I lived in MA until 2007 and I don't think I met anyone in a same-sex marriage. Gays are only about 3% of the population, some of them are single, and most of the paired ones don't seem to have an interest in it. Most of the wedding occured in 04 or 05 as there was pent up demand, then the number of same-sex weddings dropped drastically. They removed the residency requirement in 2008 after it became legal in CA to attract out of state business. I don't know how many more that brought in, but those aren't counted since they aren't recognized anywhere except CT and maybe NY.

If a marriage amendment made it to the ballot their would probably be an uptick as couples rush to do it before the window closes like it did in CA.

Interestingly enough about 2/3rd of gays are men, only about 1/3 are women, yet women made up 2/3rds of the weddings.

And surprisingly, fire hasn't fallen from the sky in Boston yet. Kind of undermines the argument that legalizing gay marriage will destroy the very fabric of society, doesn't it?

Gay marriage isnt just about getting married, it is about having the same choice to marry that only straights currently enjoy. So long as we are denied this same choice we are not equal.

Perhaps gay marriage is so frightening to some straight people because rather than it making gays just like straights it makes straights just like gays which is an intolerable state of affairs for those who dont believe that we are equal.

.

I don't understand the whole equality thing. It's like the gay community is seeking validation. I can completely understand the equal benefits aspect, but there appears to be a sizeable portion of the population that wants the validation of a label.

To that, I say that we as a country routinely exercise the right to socially engineer. You can see it in our tax codes, in our immigration policies, in our school systems and many other facets of daily life. In this case, the label denotes focus on male/female relationships. This dovetails with our focus on reproducing and traditional family structures.

To greatbear, this is what we talk about with the sky falling. Clearly 10k gay couples marrying will not change anything in and of itself. However, it is one additional step in the disintegration traditional family structures.

40 years ago, one parent could stay home, childcare was not outsourced, violence was lower, obesity lower, educational levels higher and income more secure. Maybe what you think we have is progress, but I don't. Gay marriage clearly didn't cause that, but it is symbolic of the general acceptance of the crumbling american contract.

I still don't get what the threat legal recognition of gay marriage poses to traditional marriage. If my state legalized it tomorrow, it wouldn't cause me to dump my wife of 17 years just because the tent was a made just a little bigger. How exactly does making the contract available to others threaten those that already want it.

Tony, all of the social problems you cited had their roots in trends that began in the days when being gay was still considered a mental disorder. Gradual and begrudging tolerance of the existence of gays didn't cause childhood obesity, violence, or the economic conditions the have forced both spouses to seek employment. Divorce rates didn't rise because psychiatrists stopped trying to "cure" gays.

I'll give you a personal example: My fine upstanding, church-going ex-brother-in-law dumped my sister to go shack up with another woman. Before the divorce was final, he knocked up his new girlfriend even though he told my sister he never really wanted to have kids (they have a daughter together). Their divorce dragged out for 2.5 years before they finally reached a settlement, mainly because he fought her on how to divide up several real estate properties purchased during the marriage. His behavior had nothing to do with the acceptance of gays. If homosexuality had never existed, he'd still be a selfish little prick who cared only about himself. One has nothing to do with the other.

Oh, did I mention he once tried to drive his daughter to school while drunk? But he always looked down his nose at my wife and I because HE when to church every Sunday.

And surprisingly, fire hasn't fallen from the sky in Boston yet. Kind of undermines the argument that legalizing gay marriage will destroy the very fabric of society, doesn't it?

Actually the sky seems to have fallen since last September. Our economy is collapsing.

Please post the source for all of your statistics, 3% is very low, and the 1/3 2/3 numbers are also fishy.

Tony. The fact that you don't understand the whole equality thing is the problem. Is not equality under the law the centerpiece of our culture? It seems so basic and we have such a history with trying to prevent women and non-whites from participating in equal rights that by now we ought to understand it. So, I'm mystified when you say you don't understand.

Your fear of losing the "traditional" family structure was well addressed by Greatbear. I'll add this; you didn't go back far enough. Before and early into the industrial revolution most people lived in extended family structures. Everyone worked, including children, and there were aunts and uncles and grandparents, etc. The nuclear family you favor is relatively a new item that was encouraged by social changes in an idustrial society.

And--surprise!--they have nothing at all to do with recognizing same sex marriages.

In response to the original poster: Gay marriages in MA have never been for immigration purposes, for the simple reason that naturalization of a foreign-born spouse is a federal marriage benefit, not a state benefit.

To Tony, who wrote:

tonydavisnelson:

40 years ago, one parent could stay home, childcare was not outsourced, violence was lower, obesity lower, educational levels higher and income more secure. Maybe what you think we have is progress, but I don't. Gay marriage clearly didn't cause that, but it is symbolic of the general acceptance of the crumbling american contract.

40 years ago was 1969, a year with rather a lot of social upheaval, actually. If you're actually talking about the 1950s, then yes - it was a great time to be white, straight, middle-class (and a man). Thanks to the GI Bill and aggressive government propaganda (exhorting women who'd entered the workforce during WW II to go home and be housewives once more), homeowning single-family/single-breadwinn­er nuclear households became more numerous in the 1950s than they'd ever been before (or have been since). In those postwar years, the economies of most European nations were lying in tatters, which meant that the US had little to no competition in trade, and thus had quite a bit of money to throw around.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd have wanted to be a woman, gay, a person of color, etc. at that time...before hate crimes legislation, when consensual sex with another adult could land you in prison, when casual sexual harassment was tolerated for any woman who *dared* to work for pay, etc. What you're heralding as the high point of US civilization was a period made possible by a unique combination of historical, economic and military circumstances (mostly having to do with our position after WWII), and not by some moral high ground we once had and have now lost. As for me, I prefer to judge a society not by how it treats its most favored citizens, but by how it handles those on the margins.

joepublic23:

Actually the sky seems to have fallen since last September. Our economy is collapsing.

So now gays are to blame for the economy?

Wow.

Actually, on a per capita basis, the average homosexual has more capacity to stimulate the economy than that average heterosexual. Since most gays don't have children, they tend to have more disposable income to spend on restaurants, luxury items, and other non-necessities: The very things that families have to cut back on during rough times.

Hear hear, berkolate. If only reason and facts were accepted as valid arbiters by the other side in this argument...

There's simply no convincing some people that I, my wife, and our child are not "symptoms of the decay of society", or some such nonsense, no matter how good and nice we are. They have fixated on a period of time that didn't really exist. They are going to find someone to blame for its "disappearance", and damn the consequences.

Crowe,

I think GreatBear's response was poor. Anyone can cite examples. I'm family friends with a gay man who's an alcoholic and cheat's on his partner. There, gays are evil.

The point was twofold: 1) Over time we've done significant damage so our social structures in an effort to promote "equality", "fairness" and any number of other fungible words and 2) We as a country social engineer all the time. To promote families, we give tax breaks for kids. Is that "fair" to people without kids? Are they being treated "equally"?

Nobody seems to look at the network effects of individual decisions. They're only out for their little slice of the pie.

Perhaps gay marriage is so frightening to some straight people because rather than it making gays just like straights it makes straights just like gays which is an intolerable state of affairs for those who dont believe that we are equal.

There's more to it than that. And more to than hostility to gays. Gay marriage and homosexuality in general conflicts with the cognitive map people have of the world. There are men and woman. Homosexuality sets up a third category that is outside this bi-polarity. Marriage has a bride and groom. Having two brides or two grooms doesn't meet this expectation.

That this cognitive dissonance underlies some of the opposition to gay marriage is evidenced by the fact that so many people who are against gay marriage would support civil unions. [I know that civil unions amount to the 'separate but equal' fallacy, but as people who support such unions but not gay marriage don't make the distinction, it sheds some light on the mindset].

I'm not trying to defend this belief- I support gay marriage. But its important to understand the psychological and cultural underpinnings that are standing in the way of making progress.