The small gov't libertarian-type in me has frequently fantasized about getting gov't out of marriage altogether and just having it be defined religiously. But that's totally unworkable. Way too much of our law (property, divorce, adoption, inheritance) is tied aroud marriage, and trying to purge all that and leave it all to contracts between individuals would be a huge mess and leave a society we no longer recognize. So we're going to have to make a choice as a nation...
 

David Frum writing on NRO offers proof? that it's the first step in a radical redefinition - or even elimination - of marriage.
----
Not proof, just Frum proof.
I say eliminate marriage laws all of them - doesn't scare me - or if that doesn't appeal, then have civil law extend to all people.

I really like the constitution. I like equality. I'm not better than anyone else just because I'm a white, educated, thinking, heterosexual married woman. (Well the thinking part does put me a step above some people!)

We've done the separate water fountains...and should have learned that didn't work. We can't have separate marriage laws either. We can't have second class citizens in this country - we don't abide by a caste system.

Either we're all created equal or we're not. I go for the former and have no problem with "words" --
I understand that " all men are created equal" means men and *women*, black or white, abled or disabled, gay or straight, tall or short.

I understand that sayings like: he who is without sin, cast the first stone...means both men and *women*.

Heterosexuals have had complete control of marriage and they've failed miserably. Divorce rates are so high, it's basically a sham to get married today.

What does anyone have to fear from a same-sex marriage? Why would anyone care? Please don't tell me that the language might change as if it hasn't changed and isn't changing all the time.
 

marybishop: Thanks for visiting. I’ll lay my cards on the table. I’m pretty right wing on most issues except on abortion. I’m pro-choice. There are few countries I wouldn’t like to bomb and fewer gov’t programs I wouldn’t like to eliminate. Well, maybe that’s an exaggeration, but you get the idea. I’m pro death-penalty, pro Iraq war, pro tax cuts.

On gay marriage I’m really torn. I’m all for small gov’t and equality under the law, but I also understand (and maybe I can help you understand, too) that adopting the liberal standard that all behavior engaged by consenting adults is equally acceptable will lead to a society that none of us recognize and that all but the most radical of us loathe.

I understand why we should not discriminate against days. Let me try to make you understand why allowing gay marriage would eliminate marriage.

The first part is easy. Coincidentally, I saw one of my many gay patients today. (I don’t discuss politics at work. I have no idea what my patient thinks about gay marriage. He has no idea what I think about tax policy.) He has been living with his partner for 16 years. His partner has been struggling with serious health problems for many years, and this is placing serious emotional and financial burdens on my patient. My patient takes meticulous care of him and clearly loves him. His partner has suggested that my patient would be better off separating and moving on, but my patient wouldn’t think of it; he’s committed to this relationship for better or for worse. Clearly, this relationship is stronger and perhaps more deserving of formal recognition than many terrible marriages that we all know.

The second part just has to do with recognizing what will happen if the only societal standard that we uphold is individual freedom. If the only basis of marriage is consent, a few things will happen in quick succession. You will think my fears are paranoid, but some of them are already materializing. First, you must realize that the only fundamental objection to adult brothers and sisters marrying is religious. The biological argument that recessive genes are more likely to be expressed is nonsense. First of all, not all recessive traits are bad. Blue eyes and blonde hair are recessive. Second of all, since when can society prevent people from marrying because they may give a child dangerous recessive traits? Two sickle cell carriers can marry; even though on average a quarter of their kids will have sickle cell disease. I would certainly oppose any law preventing them from marrying. So why shouldn’t a brother and sister, whose offspring on average have a much lower chance of genetic disease, also be allowed to marry? The only honest answer is that it is banned because the Hebrew Bible forbids it. Come to grips with that, and see that freedom brings things that aren’t unhealthy, but are profoundly unholy. The next thing that will happen is that it will be correctly seen that limiting the number of people in a marriage to two is completely arbitrary and again, stems from decisions by all major religions to forbid polygamy. So free people will choose whatever they wish and marriages will form with 2 men and 3 women for the sake of convenience and shared resources even when there is no romantic or sexual relationship, or when there is. One of the greatest victories that women have achieved in the last two thousand years, the establishment of monogamous heterosexual marriage as the sexual ideal, will be wiped away.

People who have credibility with me and are not homophobes (Dennis Prager, Bill Buckley) are opposed to gay marriage. I’m torn. All I ask is that you get closer to the fence and understand the other side.
 

I think we should discriminate against nights.
 

I pretty much don't think the federal government needs to be dictating who can and can't live together, or who can and can't enter into contractual agreements.

So, basically, let folks get their marriages from their churches or somewhere else, and let the government permit the legal rights currently afforded by marriage to any lawful citizens that want to enter into the contract together.