Skipping past the debate in California and the state supreme court getting involved there, I went for the Iowa headline instead today. The story there is that the issue is not as black & white as one might think.

I found the charts especially interesting. While a clear majority comes out for traditional marriage and against gay marriage, there is not a clear majority supporting a gay marriage ban in the state Constititution, and a slight majority favoring civil unions.

This to me speaks to a significant chunk of believers who have their beliefs, but do not necessarily wish to impose their beliefs on others -- a value I find commendable.

And, of course, I liked the punchline...I guess some xians need to introduce this fella to the slippery-slope argument. Perhaps former Senator "man-on-dog" Santorum would do the honors. I wish I'd still been in PA when they booted him from office. I would really have enjoyed helping. Anyway, the punchline from the Iowa article.

Williamsburg resident Robert Hedge, 57, who identifies himself as "reasonably religious," is in favor of same-sex marriages.

"The people who talk about being against it are concerned about the religious aspects," Hedge said. "I just don't see how it damages marriage for heterosexuals," Hedge said.

An interesting quote from the article:

"Marion resident Laurie Williams, 48, is one of the poll respondents who opposes same-sex marriages and civil unions, largely for religious reasons.

"To me, that's the way I was raised," Williams said. "Just like mixed marriages. I don't believe in them, but I don't dislike someone because they did it. That's their choice. I just don't believe in it."

I would love to see a poll asking if the people who oppose allowing civil unions would also favor restricting mixed-race marriages but I doubt it's going to happen.

this woman opposes it, but then says she's not going to dislike the person. and somehow in her simplistic mind, this makes sense. but it's not just simple minded people that think that way. the kooks who came up with the legislation make it very black and white even though there are plenty of decent people who if you explain it to them, say something very similar to Ms. Williams. Namely, that they don't like it, but as long as they don't have to "see it", then they don't care. the religious right have tried to turn the idea of gay marriage into something that will change the hetero's way of life. but it doesn't, and many people DO understand the difference if you ask them.

if you listen to polling, you might be convinced otherwise. but look at the question the pollsters ask. see how they phrase it. usually it's something about "are you in favor of gay marriage?" and there's a big difference between being in favor of gay marriage (which a lot of religious types may think is supporting something against their beliefs) and being in favor of banning it.

I'd predict at least somewhat of a correlation -- but there may be a stronger correlation between those who don't like gay marriage, and those who don't like 'mixed religion' (as opposed to mixed race) marriages.

Namely, that they don't like it, but as long as they don't have to "see it", then they don't care.

Reminds me of an argument I once had with a local Indian lady. She kept on arguing against gay-rights on grounds that "the thought of gay sex makes her feel icky". I eventually told her that the thought of 2 obese hetero people having sex makes ME feel icky, but did that mean I start pushing for amendment to stop obese folks from marrying? Or should I just try to avoid 'imagining' it?

That shut her up for the time.

want to get married, they should be allowed to get married & be entitled to the same benefits that every straight married person is entitled to.

dumb_blonde:

want to get married, they should be allowed to get married & be entitled to the same benefits that every straight married person is entitled to.

Marriage, in reference to the State, is a contract. Why not then allow consenting adults to make their own contracts in regards to marriage - be it 5 year contracts, 10 year, "forever", 2 women, 3 women 2 men, etc... As long as the parties involved cover the cost then what difference does it make if they choose to share their lives and belongings with others in a legally binding contract?

Because then you're on the slippery slope to man on dog.

Seriously, Spike, that's a good question.

You can make entirely different arguments about plural marriages as you can against gay marriage. To a large extent, the arguable interests of the state are different in both cases. One could argue, for example, that most attempts at plural marriage in this country have been one man to multiple women and that this could have some undesired impacts on the stability of society.

I personally don't believe that the issues are terribly connected. However the argument that Leviticus Says So, and that Paul Quotes Leviticus doesn't hold water. By the same logic, we should probably ban Cotton-Polyester blends for use in clothing.... Oh, and shaving kits/razors for men too. Those should also be banned as per Leviticus.

Yes, the history of Polygamy as most people think of it is one older man with multiple young (poorly educated) wives, etc...

And while many men may love the fantasy of that, the truth is there just aren't a long line of attractive females looking to share their man. However, there are many men who would be happy to share their wife with another man (or woman) in ways not directly involving 3-ways or cuckolding.

The cost to the State and to employers is easily handled by moving the burden of additional coverage beyond the coverage currently provided to the employee..need to add 5 people to the plan, the employee covers the full cost of those 5.

The only other burden to the State becomes custody issues for children, however simply requiring that custody issues must be covered in the "marriage contract" or other legal documents or will be awarded only to the biological parents using current rules, etc...

Why not five?

If they are all of sane mind, legal age & have all consented to it, why not?

Given the state of divorce rates in the country, busy divorce courts, tricky custody issues, etc., it seems that the state is not interested in handling these issues before the fact, i.e. marriage contracts or 'prenups'. I get the impression that prenups are sort of frowned upon, like starting from a default position that a marriage is going to fail.

Anyone have any ideas as to why that is? Is it an idea of love & marriage that precludes any contingency planning? Is it society or religion or family, or something else that causes this? I have to wonder sometimes, because my S.O.'s sister is in the middle of a very messy divorce.

I think that has more to do with the fantasy that marriage = happily ever after. And having to sit down and actually think about the possibility of failure ruins the Diney-esque fantasy and 'romance'.

There is also what I call the Oprah effect, when a woman protects her assests prior to marriage it's "You go girl!" and is seen as a good thing, when a man does it is it a "warning sign" or he's not really committed to making it work.

konark_girl:

I eventually told her that the thought of 2 obese hetero people having sex makes ME feel icky, but did that mean I start pushing for amendment to stop obese folks from marrying? Or should I just try to avoid 'imagining' it?

Hah!!! Perfect!

I've heard that any number of times. My response is usually:

a) They aren't asking you to 'go gay'...

b) Good... now you know exactly how a gay man feels if he 'imagines' himself having sex with a woman... "icky".

But I like yours better!

Ok, I hope someone replies in a more reasonable fashion Spike, but I couldn't help a laugh at this one. It brought me the image of a butterfly taking wing somewhere across the world, and then Oprah yelling 'And you get a car!' :)