Well, I think the arguement is does often get interwined with religion, but not everyone against gay marriage by the state cites religion.

Several people question the legality of the issue. They would site the Marriage Defense act passed by your boy Clinton back in '97. I think it would have be over turned or ruled unconstitutional in order to have some sort of blanket federal regulation allowing gay marriage in all states, right?

I think the legality of the issue is that, by the law, marriage is recognized as a union of man and woman. now, this is a union that anybody (of the legal age of consent), is allowed to enter. (thus, they would say, there is no bias in the law, as any man and woman can enter this union. they don't have to be religious, they don't have to have sex, they don't have to be a certain color, it's just a union between a man and woman.) a same sex union would be something other than "marriage", just because it does not hold the only two components of "marriage", the only components and requirements that define it, a man and a woman. the fact that a gay marriage would contain the same feelings, similar sex acts, romance, and the whole nine yards, would be rendered irrelevant, because those things, according to a legality of a marriage, don't even matter, its only definition is that it is a union between a man and a woman.

(now, The religious side of the argument would say these things matter, and Bard, to be fair to the right wing, I have heard the same people that condemn gay marriage also condemn reality shows like the My Big Fat Obnoxious fianc, etc., as a degradation of the sacrament of marriage. of course, there will be hypocrites and bigots who are just homophobic and will condemn gay marriage but give trashy shows like those the green light.)


by up holding marriage under this definition, They don't feel as if they are creating a second class of citizens because the instituion of marriage is open to anyone (of age). if two people wanted to enter in to a different type of union, and wanted the same rights to apply to a married couple, then either one would have to redefine marriage or create a seperate type of union.


So I think in order to make gay marriage legal, I would think one would have to say that marriage is a union between two applicants. Also, reconsidering the definition of marriage to recognize same sex marriage, one also has to consider other barriers in marraige, will it be open to everyone and anyone, or will marriage still between just two people (i know that is debated in Utah with polymigists) will marriage still have the same age restrictions, and what about those kentucky siblings and cousins that are itchin to tie the knot.

I think this where people get nervous in discussing redefining marriage. some people just don't like messing with tradition, regardless of religion. and of course, as stated before, there is the huge economic impact.

the other option is, If one did not wish to redefine marriage, gay couples could recieve the same benefits as married couples under a "civil union". But, as Nick and others pointed out, that kind of sounds like the old seperate but equal which was ruled as a null concept. But, the idea of a civil union might be easier to legalize, and more might be more accpeting toward this concept.


So I think people, right or wrong, have many reasons out side of religion to not support gay marriage. (and I'm sure I didn't go over all of them, or even articulate a lot of them in the correct way. it's not really my arguement, so I don't know the details all too well. I simply tend to think if I was gay I would probably want to marry, so I don't see how i could support denying the right to others.)


What ever the arena the battle is fought in, judicial, legistlative or executive, I think the battle would be majorly helped by a popular vote in favor of gay marriage. I know I would be very interested to know how the vote would turn out. then, the laws would have reinforcement and would not likely be messed with in the future. kind of like the whole prohibition thing, the government can decide whatever it likes, but public out cry sure can turn the tide.

Oh, and I think I asked about this, but what do people think about having a vote to ratify gay marriage, it is a democracy, right? That way it would be more difficult to over turn the policy. Where as when judges legistlate, other court descicions can come along and undo what has been done. Even amendants can be repealed, such as the case with 21 repealing 18 due to popular support.



another question, does anybody know how many other countries have legalized gay marriage? I think Denmark was the first, if I remember right, and some other European countires followed. Does anyone know, is this debate occuring in other countries where it is not legal yet? Like Great Brit, it's not legal there is it? I was just curious as to if the debate is occuring everywhere, and how it is being recieved.