This will be one of those articles where everyone will really think that I am stupid. But, some of you already think that, so what the heck?? I am one of those naive people who just see the issue of gay marriage as two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together in a martial union that "says something" about the way they feel about each other and what they mean to each other.
Obviously, there is a lot more to it. Because, if my definition above was all there was to it, then it would already be a reality in this country. So, what I am wondering about is: What else is there to it?? Am I missing something here?? And, if so, what is it that I am missing?? To put it simply: Why isn't there already legal gay marriage in the United States??
Is religious bigotry really the only thing that has prevented it?? Or is there some legal technicality that I am not aware of?? Does it have something to do with filing income taxes or something?? Is it a moral reason or a legal reason preventing gay marriages in this country?? I ask these questions because I really and truly don't know or understand.
Are there simply more people against gay marriage than for it?? With the attitudes and opinions I have seen in this country, I don't think that's the reason. Like everything else, the answer must have to do in some way with money. It's ALWAYS about money. So, how is the issue of gay marriage about money?? Who loses money if gays get married?? And, if it is not about money (which I seriously doubt), then what is it about??
Like I have already said: I don't really know what the problem is. I admit, I have not really studied the whole issue "in depth." I only know what I know from news, stuff on the internet, and people's opinions. But, I would like to know. What is the precise reason that gay marriages are not taking place all over this country today??
Because it can't merely be because the "Christian Right" won't let it happen. There has to be more to it than just that. I also don't think it is because the vast majority of Americans are all homophobic or something. Simple logic tells me that it has to be the result of something much larger and more "monetarily" based than merely a bunch of narrow-minded religious zealots and homophobes going around bashing gays.
Perhaps, some of you can "educate" me about this. What is stopping legal gay marriage from becoming a reality in this country?? What is the REAL reason?? Is it money or legal redtape or something to do with income tax filing status or just plain old bureaucracy in government or something else entirely?? Like I said, I'm asking because I really want to know.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 213
You're right Berf - it's foolish to deny any citizen rights that other citizens can't have.
Slippery slope . . . Dads marrying daughters, Moms marrying sons . . . hell, next thing you know, there'll be a guy saying he LOVES his dog! Then lamps . . . I LOVE my Tiffany lamp . . . one day you'll pet a puppy and be sued for sexual harrasment of some man's wife! THEN . . . there'll be a knock on the door as the jack-booted authorities take you son into custody because his baseball game featured his homer through a window, killing a man's wife/lamp . . . and he'll be locked up for life and I'm not about to allow MY son to be locked up for life for playing baseball! Maybe that's cool with YOU . . . but NOT in my world pal!
Something like that!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
As far as the family values and church issues go I would think the 50% plus divorce rate and the priest molestation scandals and 1000 other things by the so called moral majority would have blown that argument right out of the water....if this country has survived through that with a semblance of family values intact I dont see why 2 people loving each other and wanting to be married is such a big deal.
We need to learn more tolerance. You take a young kid who is gay and they see how gays are discriminated against how are they supposed to feel that they are OK?
Stories like this happen all the time sadly to say.
Keep up the questions and make people think.
So...is the Britney Spears 55 hr. marriage the same? How many times has Larry King been married now? Answer . . . 7 times to 6 different women! Is that your idea of marriage?? How about Drew Barrymore with her first and second marriages both lasting less than a year? Elizabeth Taylor, 8 marriages to 7 husbands or Zsa Zsa Gabor with 9 different husbands . . . If YOU don't like marriages like that . . . or Gay marriages . . . don't do them! But, this is a free country . . . why NOT let other people be happy?
Sharon . . . these morons really ARE saying this stuff! I'm not lying. Berf wanted to know . . . I've heard it TODAY . . . and, frankly, never heard anything I thought was reasonable.
Now . . . DO NOT get between me and my rum and Dt. Pepsi! Bad mojo!! ;P
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I know they have the right. It's just being denied them, at present.
If there is another reason why, I'm not privvy to it, but you are correct, when you hypothysize that money comes into play, somehow. It always does.
It's all ludicrous
Charlie I think the preachers, priests and politicians took care of that one for us.
HELL NO!
we queers must be insane!
why in the hell would we want marriage?!
bring on the civil unions!!!
they work better for everyone... whether you are gay, straight or want to marry your living room floor lamp!!!
;)
I agree with you Berf. I think gays should be allowed to be in the same misery, Oh I mean marrage as the rest of us...just think about how much more money can be made by the lawyers for future divorces....LOL...I am kidding I actually do believe in marriage and marriage for gays. I'm not sure about the lamp though.
Edward said that "heterosexual couples use the body parts in a way consistent with what they were designed for. A homosexual couple does not." What??
Do you mean to tell me that "I" have been doing things for years that my body parts were not designed for??
Edward also said "Thus homosexual marriage goes against nature." What??
Again, I guess I must be going against nature as well but, what the hell; whose business is it anyway??
There are only problems with other people thinking that there are problems with Gay Marriage Berf.
These are legal documents, required for purchasing together, health benefits, social security benefits and tax benefits inside the law.
Our religious or personal beliefs are just that, personal and have nothing to do with the civil documents of marriage. If that were the case, then a couple that chooses not to have children should not be allowed to be married. If one of the partners is disabled and technically not able to consummate the marriage, they should not be able to be married as well under this logic.
I think we spend way too much time nosing around other people's bedrooms. Take care with your own relationships and/or marriage and respect your neighbor's rights to do the same whether gay or straight.
I'm paying tribute you ungrateful little pup.
(Said in a very loving way.)
Translation = Don't like THIS decision. This country and this state protects the rights of the minority. You also cannot pass a law, even if Unanimous, that people named Charlie must pay double taxes. It's called discrimination.
"Hell lets just throw out the Constitution."
Lemmee guess. RepubliCON, right?
"Lets let men have sex with their horse. hey John wants to marry his dog, OK. Lets make Polygamy legal, they're consenting adults right?"
SHARRRRROOOONNNN ! ! ! !
See??? I TOLD you people said this stuff!!!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Okie Dokie . . . you may scratch behind my ear . . . just leave the drinks alone!! LoL!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
When I see this argument being made, I think to myself: "This person knows nothing about nature."
Allowing two people in love to commit to each other? What did YOU think it was? Puh-LEEESE don't say propagation since sterile couples get married . . .
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Ridiculous.
someone had better talk to the dolphins, penguins, several types of ducks and birds, and the myriad of other animals that engage- not only in same-sex sex, but in lifetime partnering with he same sex. tell THEM they are not natural.
SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?
i think i remember hearing something about that in civics class....
Which leads to .... is marriage religious or secular?
Many (but not all) clergy are given the power to perform marriages under the power of the state [note: "...by the power vested in me by the state of xxx..., I now pronounce you..."]. One of your questions is whether we should grant the rights of marriage (survivorship, reciprocity, adoption, etc) to gay couples. It seems to me, as the state grants these rights, it is a secular question.
The CA justices were careful to craft the decision to say that clergy need not feel coerced to perform such ceremonies. That is the religious "right". If it is against the doctrinal stance of a religious body to sanction gay marriage, the separation of church and state guarantees that clergy not be forced to perform the ceremonies. There are wedding chapels, judges, and others also empowered by the states to perform these ceremonies.
Personally, I stand with the rights of legal adults who are in a committed relationship to have the legal right (without spending thousands of dollars for documents to cover what is inherent in the state of marriage) to formalize that commitment enforceably. It need not be called "marriage", but I am not sure it would be equal unless it is called marriage.
I must include the caveats that: religious institutions must not be forced to recognize these unions, and some individuals will never be convinced.
Like I said before I have no problem with gays. But I do not think it should be called a marriage it is not the same. No matter what you can not put a square in a circle...so why would anyone try and do the same between straight and gays. If they want married call it something else plain and simple.
If gays were so concerned about having the same rights as straight people. they would just change what it is called and get it over with. I bet you would see a big change in people's attitude.
As for people loosing the house and such when their partner dies...Where was their wills? I have yet to hear a story where a gay had a will stating their partner gets their stuff.
Why isn't it the same?
Like everything else with you . . . and unlike me . . . you're wrong yet again.
This absurd Idea to change the name is just that . . . absurd. If it IS the same, why not call it the same? If it's not . . . then why not?
good for you for asking the hard questions and for wanting to know and be educated. so far i've just read people's person opinions on how they feel about the issue both for and against, but no hardcore facts as to why not.
who does it harm if two gay people want to get married, other than the two involved if they end up getting divorced?
it's the same for when two straight people get married, and if they then get divorced.
marriage is a pact made between two people. then you throw in the goverment and/or churches to dictate their lives.
personally i don't think any "marriage" is necessary if two people love each other. if you're already living together as a couple, your already linked. the rest is just legalities and other people's opinions poking their nose into your lives.
Note also that in 16 states it took the Supreme Court's decision on Loving vs. Virginia to overturn the bans on interracial marriage, declaring them--what else?--unconstitutional. And in 2000, when Alabamans finally decided to remove the old unenforceable ban from their books, 41% of the voters still voted against the repeal.
Democracy is about electing representatives. You don't get to vote to remove other people's basic rights. As Peter said, it is the court's job to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority.
I see a rather significant problem with it, in several forms, that are independant of morals, religion, and the like. The concept of "civil unions" is much less problematic, I think.
The problem has to do with why we, as a society, have such a thing as marriage. Clearly, it is to provide a stable and somewhat "sheltered" environment for children, as in; new people. Most all the new people come into "society" in essentially the same way, and setting a reproducing couple somewhat apart, and "out of the mix" so to speak, facilitates a relatively stable set of relationships for new people to get a good secure sense of reality, and to learn how to bring new people into society when it comes time for them to do so.
It's an endless process, the quality of which has a tremendous impact on the well being of society. People come from little family units, and must establish such a unit themselves, one day, to keep the thing going. Marriage, is the setting aside, of reproducing couples, from a biologically factual perspective, and it has proven extremely successful, thus far. While naturally it's not necessary that all "marriages" be reproducing couples, or have children, that is the the reason we have marriage at all.
If it becomes perfectly acceptable for marriage to be based on the fact that two people have sex together, the basic reason for the "institution" shifts. And once it shifts, there will be no logical reason for it not to continue shifting, and here's why; The general "expectation" of the marriage being the foundation a reproducing family unit, falls away, completely. What would we say to two friends of the same sex, who were not having sex, that wished to marry, for the purpose of providing health insurance, or tax breaks, or whatever benifit the union might offer them? Well, we could hardly say; "No, not unless you have homosexual sex first" . . . so , we would have to say yes, naturally.
So folks that aren't actually "couples" would get married, for reasons that not only have nothing to do with reproducing, but also have nothing to do with sex. I realize that in rare instances, most notoriously in immigration schemes, folks that aren't really couples get married, but now we're talking about not even "pretending".
So, what if those two people aren't just friends, but say, sister and brother? What do we say to them; "No, you can't marry for those benefits, cause you're related to each other, you must find someone else to marry you? What if it's a parent and child relationship, and the adult child wants to get medical coverage, or whatever, for a parent? On what grounds do we say no?Why can't those "life partners" enjoy those benefits . . . not enough sex?
What if the two people are employer and employee, or just associates who could derive mutual benefits from the legal status? Or . . . whatever? What IS a marriage, once we delete the reproducing family unit basis? And will it not become quite unjust, to say to an unmarried person: "You must pay higher taxes, health-care costs, etc., cause you haven't "married" anyone?" So . . . why are we giving tax breaks to married folks again? Wasn't it to provide some inducement to generate stable family units, and some help in security for children's minds, or something?
Well, no. That won't be true, so, why does that unmarried person pay more taxes, and health-care costs again?
I'd say, leave "marriage" as at least the presumptive joining together of "biologically active" couples, and provide a reasonable alternative for the various folks wishing to "join" together for other reasons. For the kids, of forever, who must make more people. Rolling the dice with such an institution, is not justified, so that Bruce and Bob can be "official" husband and husband, instead of partners, or something. I don't believe it will make all that much difference to them, in the long run, what they are called.
I'm not here to play word games. Stable families are critical to a healthy society, and we already see the detrimental effects of a deteriorating norm, in that regard. Further weakening the institution through which the vast majority of humans come into the world, and learn how to keep the thing going, is not justified for the sake of some Holly Grail of perfect equity. It just ain't.
It's a game. A word game. For the sake of a few giggles, for a few gays (none I have ever known would have broken hearts if they could not call their union a "marriage", they were intelligent people), it's a lousy risk to take with an already weakened institution. We WANT stable environments for children, and there is no reason to think this will not result in further dissolution of the whole process of getting people to do this difficult thing right. I think it will probably happen, and it will probably prove destructive, and Jerry Springer will make some more money. BFD.
if the gay people you've known are intelligent people for not calling their union a "marriage", are you implying that heterosexual people who get married are not intelligent?
I would say, "Okay." It's not as if the law is going to allow double-dipping, and if those people would be entitled to those benefits if they "chose" to follow the norm, they should be entitled to them in whatever kind of relationship they choose to commit to.
To me it is astonishing that we even have to have this discussion... WHO does gay marriage hurt???
What's the "upside", of gay folks getting to say the words; "We're married", rather than something like; "We're partners", or "We're united"? . . . Tiny.
Who does marraige help?
marriage in any form is really just a case of legalities and paperwork.
Berf,
You raise some important questions, but I have to say. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that those who disapprove of gay marriage are just plain ignorant.
Not to children.
So, you've given a good deal of thought to where all this leads? Or have you simply looked at it as a bit of amusement? You figure stable families are just gonna happen, no matter how little respect and accommodation we make for reproducing couples? Why?
The story is so pretty John, but in my opinion, entirely fallacious. People don't get married for society, they get married to formalize a commitment to another person. That commitment doesn't become null and void if they decide not to (or can't) have children. The benefits of marriage are so that one or both people can share their fortunes with the other and know someone is there for them.
Society doesn't have the right to dictate that, who you can marry. You don't do it for society's sake and, if you marry just to get children, chance are you aren't going to be married for long.
The government has no business deciding who is a suitable lifetime companion for any adult. Look at how good (or not) their judgement has been on dealing with the rest of the world. You want these people having a say in who you should be with?
Berf, you have inspired me to write. Please, y'all, comment here, then come over and read and comment on my article if you aren't sick of the subject yet.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977348045
Enjoy!
Thanks for the comment.......
I have provided a link to your article to make it easier for everyone.........
"I'M NOT GAY.....SO WHAT?"
It's such a convenient argument to raise up your hands and say "what about the children? What about the children?" Well, what about them? Having two loving and caring parents, irrespective of their gender, is of far more value than to raise them than to suggest that "our family unit is right, that one is wrong".
Marriage, as someone else said above, is about love, commitment and legalities. Not about creating a "stable society".
Weird huh?
How loving. How very thoughtful. What a wonderful society.
So, what the hell, let's spin the big wheel, Maybe everything will work out just fine. Surely, we can't break this camel's back. And if we do . . . who cares, this is for love.
My point is that I just don't follow how a gay couple being married affects you and yours in any way at all. It doesn't cheapen or nullify your marriage. It's not going to make your kids fail in school or go off and do drugs. It's not going to make your wife stop loving you. It's not going to cost you your job. It's not going to weaken this country. I just don't see what it is that you're trying to say. Please feel free to explain it to me. All I am seeing is just the same old rhetoric from those who are intolerant of things that scare them. I would hope that's not the case here.
You don't want that, and, you won't therefore get it. You prefer that this business of surrendering ones self interest, for the interest of the NEW PEOPLE, be automatic, and something we can convey with a few TV episodes.
It's silly, for example, to think stuff like fidelity, vital to maintaining a trusting and truly committed parental partnership, will just come naturally to the NEW PEOPLE, when you can see as plain as day that it does not just happen. If society does not demand that horny young men stay the hell away from married women, they won't, honest. So if "marriage", ceases to imply the foundation of a reproductive family, we will cease to assume that because someone is married, they are out of bounds. They might be in bounds, and married for other reasons.
We will cease to see a "married" man who sleeps around, as someone doing something wrong, for we will not want to assume his "marriage" is of a reproductive nature, requiring society to not tempt the shit out of him, for the sake of some cool sex. Marriage, is how society "cordons off" those who have the commitment to remain mates, so those kids get a good solid start in life.
If you take away that "cordoning off", by removing the implication that marriage is centered around those kids, infidelity will rise. Societal pressure, and cooperation, is required to create that "space". The fact that many already don't handle this commitment well, is evidence that we better be very careful in further reducing that effect, or we will literally be causing real live children, to experience many traumatic things.
If you reduce that "cordon" to merely the implication of some sexual, or financial, or immigration, or whatever, arrangement, folks WILL ignore that cordon more than if it implies reeking havoc on children's well being.
1) "Marriage" is a legal institution in this country, separate from a religious ceremony. People can get married in a courthouse, or in a town hall, by a justice of the peace. No religious ceremony is required in this country. Atheists can get legally married. So, the fact that the bible says anything about marriage or the sex of the two people in a religious marriage is totally irrelevant to the conversation.
2) Legal marriage affords the two individuals within the contract certain rights that civil unions and partnerships do not. Some states do not even recognize civil unions and partnerships as legal entities that afford rights in contracts (i.e., disability, life insurance, medical rights, etc.) Therefore, to deny two individuals of the same sex the right to a legal marriage with all the rights entailed thereof is to deny equal rights to a minority group. That is against our Constituion and the anti-discrimination laws that have been passed since the Constitution was written.
3) Procreation and the passing of one's genes onto the next generation cannot be used as a reason for marriage, since there are many, many people who choose NOT to have children but are legally married, who CANNOT have children but are legally married and childless, who CANNOT have children but are legally married and have adopted other's childre, who both individuals CANNOT have children but the wife is artificially inseminated by some other man's sperm (man to whom she is not married), who both individuals CANNOT have children but the husband artificially inseminates a proxy mother (woman to whom he is not married), and who have children and are not legally married - never were or are now legally divorced.
Bottom line is, there are no valid reasons for two men or two women not joining together in a legal marriage contract and receiving the benefits thereof. Probably the biggest reason it is such a problem in this country is because religious people think marriage is THEIR institution and have no problem denying equal rights to others using a religious basis of thought. This is a travesty that an advanced western democratic country like the US is so far behind the curve in the area of human rights because of narrow-minded, dogmatic religious conservatives. A travesty.
But that's not even the main issue. The real casualty has been two full generations of children who did not have the benefit of nuclear families like those who came before them. One can certainly find psychologists and other analysts for a dime a dozen who will say that the culture of divorce has had little affect on children. These charlatans spout false platitudes while making a fortune on the backs of these children. Anyone who claims that divorce does not adversely affect children, who cannot see the affect it has had on our societal interaction - in homes, schools, the workplace and every other location, is either blind or in denial. So extreme caution is urged while the long-term affect of this potential change is studied.
Proponents of homosexual marriage are correct in one light - the divorce rate, etc., would probably not be any worse that it currently is. Is that a valid reason? It won't be any worse than it is now? And is it accurate? It is a rehash of the old argument that since alcohol is legal, we should make other drugs legal too. So if one legal item has destructive properties we automatically have to allow other items with similar destructive properties to be widely available? The argument goes that they may not be any worse than alcohol. True. But when we add the cumulative effect of all of them, our society is weaker and more strained. So such an argument is vacuous and inane: "They have the right to destroy themselves! Why shouldn't I have that same right?"
But that is neither the primary argument made, not should it be the primary defense. The main problem is this: once something is redefined it can never be returned to its original legal definition. But the backlash of that is it is then open for constant revision and redefinition. In the case of marriage we saw the immediate results of that. Immediately after homosexual marriage was okayed by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2004, an open suit in Utah (Bronson v. Swensen) used the ruling of the MSC as a reason to allow bigamists and polygamist to be included in the definition of legal marriage. I understand that this is not a stance that most who back homosexual marriage support. But to be honest, how can there be any method of blocking this despite intent? Once the legal definition of something has been altered the original definition or intent no longer holds any valid legal meaning. Indeed, in the legal arena the opposite takes place - once the original legal meaning is no longer valid and precedent has been established to support changes to that are provided, courts usually defer to the precedents for future ruling and rarely consult, let alone allow, the previous definition prior to the precedent(s). Because legally, while the original definition may remain in place, it can no longer be used to define whatever it is.
That is why the plaintiff in a second lawsuit (since dropped) used the MSC decision to file a suit in California. She is a self-described bisexual who is legally married to a heterosexual man and also has a female lover outside of the marriage. Her suit claimed that since she loved her husband and was legally married to him that she should have the right to also marry her homosexual lover, whom she also loved. This suit effectively combined homosexual marriage and polygamy. Again, it has since been dropped – but that would not prevent another from being fined at any time. Lest anyone say that this type of marriage is not part of the intent, let me remind you that intent or not, it is not only possible but that it currently exists in Europe and in Canada. The same door that opened this possibility (redefining marriage to include the union of two homosexuals instead of restricting the definition to heterosexuals) is what preceded that ruling be several years.
So the question a thoughtful America should be asking is, "What new level of problems does this Pandora's Box open up for us?" Polygamy, no matter the sexual identification of the people involved, opens up a vast array of problems. The first of many on this list is to ask this: the woman who filed would certainly have a husband and a wife in this marriage. But how may spouses would the other two have? Would they also automatically be married to each other? If not, what relationship DO they have? What if the 3rd party decides she wants to marry another married couple as well as this one? Would all five of them be married to each other? What happens when one partner decides that (s)he wants to divorce one spouse but remain married to the other(s)? How is divorce, alimony and child support handled? What about children in a relationship of this nature - how would visitation be split among up to four fractured families? How would true parenthood be determined? I mean, even though a single set of parents' DNA would identify the biological parents, in a family of 2 moms & 3 dads (the second set of partners are a bisexual and homosexual man married to each other) who's to say that the bond between the child and one of the non-biological parents wouldn't be stronger than with his/her biological parent? This is what happens when a legal definition is changed. I realize that few who support homosexual marriage who believe this scenario will pay pout/ but I have yet to find anyone who will explain why they hold that position, other than the fact that the intent of homosexual inclusion does not extend to polygamy. OK. But how can it be stopped? And assuming it cannot be stopped, these are real problems that will arise from the inclusion of polygamy as a legal definition of marriage. Who is taking these into account?
Again, I understand that polygamy isn't the goal for most that support homosexual marriage. But as with all situations, the unintended consequences of a legal decision of this magnitude are nearly unavoidable. To begin with, let's start with the premise that we don't know what we don't know. In other words, we don't know what circumstances will arise out of this change. Some believe they do, but I submit that no one who supports this change can accurately predict that this will not occur. No one can say with any certainty that the fallout of homosexual marriage will not result in the logical extension of the legal process I have just described. And without that, how can we be justified in moving forward? I will reiterate for at least a third time that I fully understand the intent of the homosexual marriage movement is to continue the restriction of marriage by limiting it to two people – just to allow the inclusion of two people of the same gender to get married. And if it were as simple as two people who love each other wanting to enter into a binding legal partnership there would be much less opposition. It would then cease to be a civic matter and be a solely religious one. And this innocuous version is the one that is currently being presented. But as repeatedly stated above, intent is unimportant. Once a definition is changed, prior definitions no longer have any legal bearing – only application and extension of current precedents does.
So it stands to reason – regardless of intent – that if the legal definition is changed to include homosexual partners polygamy is eventually inevitable. Once homosexual marriage is included, all other definitions will be just as legally viable. One can argue this for as long as one desires, but it will make little difference in the end. Once the definition of marriage is changed it can no longer restrict or exclude anyone's definition of marriage, regardless of how far from the original intent it veers. Unlike those who use bestiality as a scare tactic and unavoidable result of this decision, I don't believe we would see it included as a form of legal marriage in our lifetimes. I must follow by saying that I cannot completely rule it out nor can anyone else, although I believe it would be remain extremely improbable. I see marriage remaining the domain of humans.
But as in the myth of Pandora's Box that I cited above, once she opened it the contents could never be contained again and nothing was as it once was – everything and everyone was changed forever, even though that was never her intent. So it is with homosexual marriage. And as with all other changes in social mores, the real effect will not be immediately noticeable. Remember, the real affect of no-fault divorce was neither planned for, intended nor was it immediately noticeable. So we should avoid attempts to gloss over the possible repercussions with Pollyanna attitudes that all changes will be good for some and have no affect on others. To take such a cavalier view of this idea would be irresponsible.
You have rather eloquently stated the position of the quasi-religious /legal idealists backing up their intent to stop same-sex marriages. I still don't buy it. There's an awful lot of suppositions in your discourse. But the possibilities still do not address the fact that the act of continuing to outlaw same sex unions is nothing more than parceling out of rights as they appear to fit into someone else's plan rather than what is fair and equitable.
"[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding
intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are
void."
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting
from a prior court case))
"The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against
miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions
against incest and incestuous marriages."
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting
from a prior court case))
"[T]he State's prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same
footing
as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or
the prescription of minimum ages at which people may
marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally
incompetent."
(Source: Excerpted United States Supreme Court oral argument
transcripts from Loving v. Virginia, from Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton,
eds., May it Please the Court (1993) at 282-283, quoting Virginia Assistant
Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, arguing for Virginia's ban on interracial marriage.)
Allowing interracial marriages "necessarily involves the degradation" of
conventional marriage, an institution that "deserves admiration rather than
execration."
(Source: A U.S. representative from Georgia quoted in Eric Zorn, Chicago
Tribune, May 19, 1996)
I imagine that was the argument against the law that allowed women to vote....and the law that freed slaves....and the law that prohibited children from working.
That is NOT an argument, Joe. Using the current state as a "who knows what will happen if we change it" argument against doing the right and just thing is, well, wrong and lame.